# Role of Officer vs job of NCM [Merged]



## Argyll 2347

I have been debating for a while what to do with my life after High School.  Everyone wants me to go to RMC and get a degree.  The thing is that I don‘t want to become an officer, I have fallen in love with the Field work and exercises that the NCM does.  I can‘t make up my mind but I‘m leaning towards the Reserves and then Reg Force (Argylls for reserves and RCR for Reg).  What is all your opinions?

thanks

Argyll 2347


----------



## RCA

Think long term - an education is a hard thing to beat especally the degree. As to Offr vs NCM - both have advantages and disadvantages, however good officers are hard to come by and if you are eligable and accepted by RMC it would be a shame to waste.

And by all means do yoiur time in the reseves first. It is a good way of getting your feet wet first.

P.S. - junior officers also do a lot of field work only their perspective is different

Ubique


----------



## the patriot

There are many ways you can go about this.  Keep in mind that you can still get an education as an NCM in the regs.  There is a plan I believe called the UTNMP.  Basically commissioning from the ranks.   This way you can have the best of both worlds.  Start your career as an NCM, then when you feel you‘re ready for university studies, they‘ll send you off to RMC and graduate you with a commission.  The best of officers, were former NCM‘s.  Remember that!!!  Not only will your men and women have more respect for you, I think you‘ll find your military career more rewarding this way.

-the patriot-


----------



## Gunner

the patriot - The best of officers, were former NCM‘s. Remember that!!! Not only will your men and women have more respect for you, 

I don‘t know how many times people keep saying this in the War Diary but, frankly, it‘s untrue.  I have worked with outstanding officers who are ROTP, OCTP, RESO, MITCP, etc, and I‘ve worked with officers who CFR and CSM.  

It didn‘t make any difference if they were or weren‘t an NCM prior to commissioning.  Some were good officers and some were bad officers.  I‘ve known some pretty good WOs and MWOs who were pretty bad officers.  I‘ve known some Cpls who became excellent officers.

Personality, attitude, just giving a damn about the task at hand etc are all person dependent.  Just because you were once an NCM (as I was once) does not mean you will bring these traits with you.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Well said Gunner.

From my personal observations, the failure occurs when the "NCO transitioned to Officer" fails to adjust their perspective and leadership style to fit their new role and level of responsibility.  Just because an NCO was an excellent MCpl or Sgt section commander does not imply that they can or should use the same leadership style as a platoon or company commander.  Some make the change very well and are excellent officers, others just never figure it out.

Patriot - be careful how you sell the attributes of the University Training Plan for Non-Commisssioned members (UTPNCM). It is not granted freely to people just because they desire that career track. There are relatively few selected each year for such programs in any trade/classification.


----------



## Cog

First off, my sincere thanks to all that helped me get my head on straight. Couldn‘t have done it without you. 

So now that I‘ve decided to do join, I need to decide whether or not to go the officer route. So far, I‘ve seen it reccomended from all sides; from this group, my uncle, and a retired Navy guy my dad knows.

However, I do have a few reservations.

#1 on my list: A big reason for joining (for me) is the gritty, dirty, in the mud training. I want to see if I can hack 13 km ruck marches and living rough, and going days on end with too much to do and not enough sleep. What I‘m really worried about is signing on for officer training or whatever, and just ending up going back to university. I do enough of that already. And when I watched the officer video at the recruiters, that‘s what it looked like to me. Sure, they did runs, and shot rifles sometimes. But there was a world of difference between that and what I saw in the infantry video. So, ??

I was told, however, in another post, that officer training is in 4 stages. And I‘m wondering if what I saw was just one phase. So what I‘m hoping all that the classroom stuff is just the officer equivalent of basic, and then after you choose your trade (proffesion?) and (if I was to go infantry officer), you then go and do all the in-the-mud, test-your-limits training. 

I guess what I‘m asking is if anyone has experience with doing the Infantry Officer program in the reserves, or any reserve officer training. I‘d be particularly interested in two things: 1) How much actual trade (infantry) training you get to do (do you do everything the NCM‘s do, and more?) and 2) Once you‘re in a unit, what your role is. Cause to be honest, if I will be expected to work a desk job and watch feild exercises with binoculars, I‘m not there.

Oh yeah, what about the commitment? Is it different for officers than for NCM‘s in the reserves? The training is longer, so I‘d think they expect more out of you.. any thoughts?

Any info or opinions regarding Officer vs. NCM are welcomed. Experience and advice, too.

Thanks,

Greg.


----------



## the patriot

Greg,

Maybe I wasn‘t clear enough in the other thread.  Yes, the officer program for the reserve infantry is 3-4 phases.  At the reserve level you will be doing your "phase training" over your summer time off from school.  Do bear in mind that you must pass BOTC (Basic Officer Training) before you can go on further to other phases of training.  For all intensive purposes, BOTC will be your Phase 1.  As for the training, let‘s put it this way.... You will be expected to able to do what you ask of your men and women under your command.  So it isn‘t exactly a picnic.  You will be working your tail end off.  Furthermore, you will be taught on your Phase 1 by Sergeants and Warrant Officers who have been on multiple UN Tours of Duty.  Some of which are former Canadian Airborne Regiment members.  In closing, it will make you a more disciplined, (thus helping you with your time management in school) and decisive person than you are now.  May I suggest further that you go into your local Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre and talk to a counsellor.  This way you can get your paperwork underway and also determine if you can still make this summer‘s Basic Officer Training Course.

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot

Further to my last post Greg,

As for the commitment, your obligations to your unit would be just like your NCM‘s.  "Lead by example" is best way I can put it.  Soldiers crave leadership that does good by them.  You must be that standard.  You‘re right, more will be expected of you.  But it is well worth it in the long run.

-the patriot-


----------



## Grunt031

Although Reserve officers go through Phase training, rumors are that it will be getting shut down for an inferior program.  Find out the skinny at http://www.army.dnd.ca/cgi-bin/forum/ultraboard.pl 
Surviving a 13K ruckmarch.  Bull.  A soldier worth his beans shouldn‘t worry about a puny 13K ruckmarch.
I would go counter to the suggestions that have been offered to you.  Try putting time in the ranks in the reserves.  You get to be in on all the "high-speed" stuff you mentioned.  You don‘t hold the responsibility of an officer, but it spares you from all the bureaumess that they have to manage.  With a good angle on officers, you can decide when your done university if you want to seek a commission in either the reg force or the militia.  (Plus...the JR Mess has way better parties)
You may decide you really like it in the ranks.  After all, it is the NCM‘s who are the shooters.  And once you reach the positon of a NCO, you have responsibilities just as vital as an officer.
Either way, your promised a rewarding career if you maintain a good additude and take on all your tasks with a kick ***  and take numbers kinda outlook.


----------



## Cog

Okay. I‘ve just spent a few hours digging throught the QR&O and the CFAO. What I‘ve found is kinda worriesome, from my point of view.

From what I found, I think I would enter through something that is called the Reserve Entry Training Program (RETP vs. ROTP). Now if I read right, I do the *exact* same training as the ROTP guys, except that I have to pay for everything (food, room, tuition, etc.). I don‘t get paid while attending the CMC (RMC?), but I get paid for my summer training. This sounded to me like I was there year round? Though I‘m sure this can‘t be what you guys were talking about, it was all I could find. Anyways, I do this until my training is complete. Then at the time of graduation I have to sign something called an Agreement of Understanding. This entails various things, but the one that I didn‘t particularly like was that (if I didn‘t leave right then and there) I was in for 

** 5 years of mandatory service **

during which

** I agree not to request release in any way  **

Needless to say, I kinda went Whaaaaat?

And there were a few other things that made me frown, like that I wouldn‘t be able to parade with my unit unless express permision was given by some high-and-mighty acronym that I can‘t remember. In terms of training, Patriot was absolutely right. You are expected to know and do everything your troops do, and do it in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to why you are leading and not someone else. While I must say that the training in both leadership and trade interests me, 5 years of compulsary service does not. Especially when I may get out of University and get offered a million dollar job in Australia, or something. 

So, can someone please clear me up on commitments? I go back to the recruiters next week, so I can ask then... But forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks again,

Greg.


----------



## Grunt031

COG, the RETP program is the one mentioned above by patriot.  For reserve officers, it involves the same courses as Regular force officers, taken during the summer.  In the fall/spring you go to school (UofC I take it) and parade with your unit.  Like I mentioned above, rumors are that the RETP is going to to be replaced by a MITCP program which offers inferior training for reserve officers compared to the Regular Force.
The ROTP program involves full time attendance to the Royal Military Collage (RMC)and summer training in the summer months.  After completion of a degree program at the RMC, the candidate is responsible to give 5 years service in the Regular Force.


----------



## McG

Grunt031, RETP is a program which allows reserve officers to pay for the RMC experience.  RESO is the program you are thinking of.  The primary difference is that with RESO you attend a civilian university and parade with a reserve unit during the winter, and with RETP you attend RMC during the winter.  RESO is possibly the most common reserve officer entry program, and RETP the least common.

Cog, if you are truly considering going officer, go now.  As was mentioned there are considerations to replace both the RESO and the current MITCP with something new (and certainly inferior to RESO).  As it stands now, you will find the RESO courses to be more of a physical and mental challenge than the courses offered to NCMs in the reserves.  This is due to the fact that the RESO program is built around a university schedual and has more time than the QL2/3 program which is built around a highschool schedual.


----------



## Bloggins

Cog, it may not look like this right now, but you‘re actually in a pretty sweet spot. You can take some time to get a feel for the army before you make any sort of final, irrevocable commitment. There are a couple of caveats to that, which I‘ll get into below.

I think the big thing that comes across from your other posts is that you want to keep your options open until you see whether this really is what you want to do for the rest of your life. That‘s probably smart, because I doubt there‘s anyone posting here who would say that what they found in the army is exactly what they thought it would be going in. Which being said, I think you can pretty much rule out joining the regs to begin with. This reduces the choice to NCM vs. Officer in the reserves.

On that score, while it is possible to be an excellent officer without being an NCM first, I‘ve never heard of anyone who made a worse officer for starting out in the ranks. There are lots of folks who argue that you can‘t really get into the individual troops head without having been one. Obviously a pretty broad generalization, but think it over. Your troops will certainly look at you differently if they know you‘ve been one of them. There are a couple of other plusses. Learning your basic skills as an NCM can give you a big leg up if you do decide to go officer later - that‘s a whole series of lessons you won‘t have to learn at the same time as all the leadership stuff. Finally, it will let you try the army on for size without having to commit time to all the stupid administrivia and mess games that are such drag for reserve officers.

Now here‘s the caveats. First, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the RESO program is the most challenging and rewarding course open to a reservist. It‘s also very useful to have under your belt if you decide to do a component transfer to the Reg Force after graduating, since it qualifies you to the same standard as the regs. But it‘s probably going away. The new focus seems to be on training Militia officers to do only those tasks they need in the Militia context, which is not the same thing. The net result is sure to be that the course will be watered down. So in other words it may be a ‘buy now or face disappointment‘ kind of thing. Next, I have seen young guys who had all the requirements on paper to be officers choose to start as NCMs, not make much of an impression as soldiers, and have their regiment refuse to give them a try as officers because they didn‘t appear to have the right stuff. Probably a fair call, but at least one person I knew had to quit and join another regiment to get the chance. Something to bear in mind. One last point. It may be tough to go from being one of the guys to being a Sir. Some people have more difficulty with that than others.

So, to sum up. If you join as a NCM you will learn lots of good stuff without burning any bridges. You may well find it‘s the right thing for you. If not, you always have the option of applying for officer later, although you may have to jump through some extra hoops to do it. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.


----------



## Grunt031

McG, thanks for the heads up...so many damn letters...I wish it was just "Officer School."
Bloggins, good post.  Being in the ranks is not a prerequisite for being a good officer.  I‘ve seen many testements of good officers who never were in the ranks and of ****ty officers who were former NCO‘s.
But I *personally* think that the challenge of command that comes from being an officer is alot to throw on someone with no prior experience or military socialization.  To me, being in the ranks allows both the potential officer and his superiors (both O‘s and NCO‘s) to evaluate his or her potential for a leadership position.


----------



## Cog

Okay, I‘ve still gotta find something solid on the post-training commitment attatched to the RESO program, but what I‘ve read so far said no commitment. That‘s good. RESO sounds like the exact thing I was looking for. Thanks for the heads up!

I thank you for the [excellent] posts above. I‘ll explain a little more about my reasoning, regarding NCM an O. 

Deep, Zen-Like reasons for going NCM:

First off, one can‘t lead without first knowing how to follow. Simple as that. Shouldn‘t give an order unless you know how to take one, so I‘ve heard. Second, I‘ve always been told respect is earned, not given. If I would be a leader, those I lead *must* know that I‘ve been where they are, that I know exactly how they feel, and that I‘m looking out for them because of that. Otherwise, they will not give me the trust and loyalty needed for me to be a good leader. 

And lastly: I hate desk jobs. 

Reasons for wanting to be nothing but a Zero:

Two words: Leadership training. Huge perk. Plus it would allow me to think more freely. Gives me responsibilities. Plus the in-mud training. All in all, it just seems like an all round better deal.

So, from what I gather, for a limited time only, I can get some real kick ***  training on both sides of the fence. Sounds good to me. So good, I have a feeling it‘s going to come up in a big way when I see the recruiter next. So, as ever, thanks for your advice. It‘s invaluable. Before I sign off here, there‘s something I‘m starting to mull over a bit here, and I‘d thought I‘d see what you guys have to say:

When I first seriously looked into joining the military, it was for two reasons. 1) Something deep down calling for it, and 2), To test myself and to find out if I was worthy of the uniform.

My concern is that right now I have a mind trained to be very analytical and creative, which is a good thing. I‘m  wondering what kind of effects the military environment would have on me. University teaches one to question everything, not to accept unconditionally. The military teaches you not to question, and to accept orders unconditionally. These two mindsets, military and university, would no doubt conflict a little teensy bit...   Any thoughts on this? Do you think I‘m going to end up butting heads all the time? Would it be different as a NCM or an O? I can‘t imagine modern training/indoc would be anything like FMJ, but better to go in knowing what to expect. Less trouble that way.

Again, I‘m just making sure I know what I‘m getting into before I jump, and I‘m throwing concerns at you guys as they arise. I greatly appreciate the patience you‘ve shown so far. I‘m discovering that joining the military is a much more serious affair than I once thought, and is requiring much more consideration than I had expected...

Anyways, thanks again. Someday, I‘ll stop being such a PITA. I promise. 

Cog.


----------



## Bloggins

OK, promising not to go into verbal diarrhea mode here again...



> University teaches one to question everything, not to accept unconditionally. The military teaches you not to question, and to accept orders unconditionally.



It‘s not as big a difference as you might think. Being a robot is not a requirement for the job.

There‘s a time to speak, a time to listen, and a time to stop arseing around and get the hell on with what you‘re doing. Isn‘t that true of school as well?

You might also remember that the only distinction on paper between a new troop and a new officer is that officers pretty much MUST have a university education, and NCM only MAY have a university education. That should say something about relative compatibility. The army wants you to have higher education because it indicates a capacity to learn, and to think creatively under pressure.

And oh yes, if you do wind up as an officer, you will rapidly come to terms with all the subtle and not-so-subtle ways your troops have of telling you just what they think of your latest clever scheme without ever _hinting_ at insubordination!


----------



## RCA

The debate whether to be an officer or in the ranks I feel is moot. Leadership is a function of personality. If  you are an ******* as a pers you will be a an ******* as an officer or SNCO.

 I agree that some CFR make good officiers but flipping the coin thay also want to be buddies with the "lower" ranks. Doesn‘t work that way.

An officer plans, NCOs impliment that plan. Figure which side you want to be on and do it. (yes it come down to that)An officer gets as much trg as he needs to perform his function. And he gets ***  in the grass time also . However being desk bound is also part of the job, if you want to look after your men properly (the same as an NCO). (also think secondary duties)

The basic thing to remember is common sence. It is true that respect is earned. Earning that respect is no different for a NCO than an officer. The common tread is treat your soldiers as you want to be treated, making fair and honest decisions, and being a professional by doing the best job you know how and the rest will fall into place. 

I guess that I see you as offiicer material. However the decision is yours. And another truism of military life is making decisions is a way of life for us if you want to get ahead.

The ball is in your court.

PS dont forget to consider the artillery as a calling (we blow up things too)


----------



## Grunt031

An important part of leadership is not letting anyone else **** on your fighting men....


----------



## babicma

Hello everyone,

I‘m in need of help!

I‘m considering RE-joining the reserves after 3 yrs of being a civilian. I was in the Naval Reserve before in 1999 and 2000 as a R-277 NavCom. I completed my basic at Borden 9901 and my OSQAB in Esqimalt. 

Since then I have received my BA from McMaster Universty in Hamilton and I‘m currently in the interview process with the Hamilton Police Service. 

Now recently, having talked to the recruiting officer from the police who is also an officer with the Army Reserves. From that talk I have decided (95% sure) to go back to the reserves but this time with the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry.

Why? 

My goal is to go ERU (Emergency Response Unit or S.W.A.T.) with either Hamilton or any other police service that gives me the opportunity in the future.

Now, I believe that joining and training in the reserve forces will give me the overall upper edge with persuing my police career not only as a COP but also in my drive and dream of getting on a ERU. 

I believe that I have made the right considerations of joining back up for the training and for personal motivational reasons, but I have one last thing that I need to decide:

INFANTRY SOLDIER or INFANTRY OFFICER??

Reasons:

1. I want to train and want to aquire the tactical and weapons training that will be an asset to my resume when it becomes time to go ERU.

2. I want a reserve/part-time military career as long as I can handle it and want to train and better myself.

3. And if needed, before I go Police, I would love a UN tour in Bosnia especially considering the fact that I am proficient in speaking and writing both in Latin and Cryrilic Serbian Bosnian Croatian Macedonian tounges/scripts and a little Russian. Also with the Serbo-Croatian you would think I was born over there matching my Serbo-Cro dialect to the region or city that I am in over there!

But anyways,

Infantry Soldier looks like the best choice to get all these things and hopefully later become an officer. But! Some people say that I should go officer right away! 

Question is will I get the same or better SOLDIER training than going in as a NCO??

What do you people think would be the best route to take. 

Go NCO get the raw experience and respect before going officer or go officer right away!

I also have to remember that later in my future police career I might not be able to take the time off to do my officer training and I want to get started with my Reserve Career hopefully this summer so I can come back in August if I get a job offer from the police.

So any help will be of great assistance and will be greatfull to all who help me come to this decicion. 

I guess you can see my e-mail in my profile but if you dont send me some e-mails (even though i‘ll be checking the board) if you have the time and goodwill to help me.

Thank You and God Bless!


----------



## GhostRecce

From my personal experience i find officers who where NCO‘s before getting commisoned make better officers than those who where not NCO‘s. Experience is always a good thing. But again this is my personal experience others may have different points of veiw


----------



## Vigilant

You said that you wanted ERU/SWAT and that was what you really wanted to do.

Now, most Officers aren‘t desk jockeys, but they don‘t get to do as much of the training and other fun stuff of the NCMs.

If I was hiring you for the job I would care more about the years of training and the type of training you had. If you were a Master Corporal who had trained to JTF2 PT levels I would be more impressed than if you were a Captain.

I would recommend going NCM and seeing how you like it, as Officers have to go through a crap load of paperwork all the time. IF you think you might like it later you can always get CFR, but not the other way down.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Just to play devil‘s advocate, you say you‘d accept a MCpl with JTF-2 level fitness, but not a captain. What if that captain was in an infantry unit and had accumulated experience as a range officer for all the unit‘s weapons and was qualified to design and conduct field firing ranges. There are a wide variety of skills and varying levels of experience between the officers and NCOs in an infantry unit (Reg or PRes), and each may have applicability to the original poster‘s interests in the ‘fit‘ to tactical team employment.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike


----------



## gate_guard

My advice? If your number one priority is policing, then do that and THEN figure out if you have the time and commitment to join the militia. 
But don‘t become a cop assuming that you‘ll be able to parade and attend ex‘s regularly. As far as gaining extra "tactical" knowledge, the infantry isn‘t the best place for that. Let‘s put it this way, the number one priority of the police is to save lives (including the ERT/SWAT team). The number one priority of the infantry is to take lives. This results in a major difference of sop‘s and tactics.

As far as NCM vs Officer, go NCM first.


----------



## Ruthless4Life

For experience, NCM usually get more. But who knows, maybe the rank of a CO could help too. I think it depends what the police force prefers.


----------



## babicma

So..

Do you guys think that the training I will recieve with the RHLI in basic will help me over the years in going ERU????


----------



## babicma

Sorry.. Not just in basic but OVERALL training over the YEARS???


----------



## humint

You definitely get more hands-on as an NCM than as an Officer. However, like the mil, no police force would expect you to come into a tactical role already with bags of tac exp and weapons training. They will train you from zero, just like the mil does.  

Why the RHLI over the Argylls? 

By the way, there are many police officers and emergency responders as both NCMs and Officers in the Argylls, and they can manage both. I don‘t see why you won‘t be able to.


----------



## babicma

humint thanks alot!

To answer the question RHLI over Argylls:

1. I was first in touch with the RHLI recruiter

2. Im not really crazy about wearing a kilt, not that I have anything against it 

I totally agree with you about the training the police will give, its just that I would like to get some experience with weapons and hopefully FIBUA with the reserves. Also when I come to applying to the ERU after I put my time in as a COP I would like my resume/experience to read better than somebody who has only handled the Glock and shotgun while being a COP.

Another thing I would love to talk to some guys who are on Hamilton Service (either COPS or Emergency) and are with the RHLI or the Argylls so if you can give me some advice on that I would be more than greatfull.

Thanks for the support humint, im getting more and more pros for going to the reserves before I go to OPC (thats if I get hired! hehe)

Cheers!!


----------



## babicma

Just wanna try out my new avatar!


----------



## babicma

Hopefully works this time sorry for going off topic. Still need more advice!

Thanks to all!


----------



## humint

True, we are Scottish. But, the whole kilt wearing thing happens so infrequently that it never really becomes an issue -- even for the non-Scots in our unit. 

Drop by the ASH recruiting office on a Wed night and I‘ll intro you to a few police and emergency officers/responders in the regiment. 

Hopefully, we‘ll have a Fibua site set-up in the near future (not sure if the RHLI will be allowed to us it, but we may make an exception if you ask real nice). You‘ll definitely get a lot of hands-on with mountain warefare and urban ops as our entire Brigade group has been given that task. Plus, the NBC training will also help.

Are you going through the police recruitment process right now? If so, at what stage are you and what departments? 

There‘s a weekend BMQ course starting in Jan, so if you get on that, you will be able to get basic out of the way by April -- therefore cutting down on the likelihood that you will have a conflict between police/army training.

In the big picture, you CAN do both. As a police officer, you will have some conflicts because of your 12 hour rotating shifts (man, I hate those). So, you may miss the odd parade night or weekend ex, but it shouldn‘t be that bad. Like many of us, you‘ll have to use your holidays to do mil extended training. And, as a police officer, you‘ll be able to rack up a lot of overtime, which you can take as time off, this freeing up time for training/tasking, etc.

Plus, most of the training is now in weekend or module form (2 week blocks), so it‘s getting easier for us regular workin‘ folk to do the necessary training.


----------



## babicma

Thanks humint I‘ll most likely make it to Wed night for the training night of the Argylls.

Thanks for the invite I‘d love to talk to some guys who do both police and reserves especially ERU members.

My objective is to join whichever regiment RHLI OR the Argylls, I want the one that will give me the best training and the RHLI recriuter didnt tell me anything about ERU guys with the Rileys! So, Id rather train with the Argylls if I can be around the right training and the right people! If you know what I mean!?! I only want to be with the best and try my hardest to be as good and even BETTER!

Right now I am waiting to get called for my ECI interview (second interview). It looks like no one is hiring for Jan but May and Sept look very promising, as long as I pass my ECI, LFI and psychs. My police recuiter told me that interviews for ECI will most likely start in Jan, so even if I get an offer for May I would still defer that till Sept so I could go on course this summer!

So I guess I‘ll be at the armouries on Wed night at 1900?? 

Who should I ask for, where should I go?

Thanks a million for helping me out and hopefully if the Argylls sell me on their training aspect compared to the RHLI. I‘ll join and don the kilt with pride! hehe 

And I would really like to get some more info on trainig dates coming up during 2004, I got some dates from RHLI but it sounds just by your last post that you know a little more, which is good for me!

Thanks again!

Keep the posts coming!!!


----------



## babicma

Decision has been made:

Score is

NCO: 2

Officer: 1

Cheers everyone for helping me come to a decision!


----------



## xFusilier

First of all you have to determine what you want.  The fact is that after 6 years experience in the militia I cannot draw  a collation between officers that were troop/NCO‘s and officers that were not.  I have worked for excellent officers that were recruited right of the street, and I have worked for horrible officers that were MCpl‘s and Sgt‘s.  Being an NCO does not necessarily make one a better officer.

Having spent 6 years in the Militia, and worked for the RCMP and a civillian member, I can tell you that in my own experience the single biggest thing that the Militia can offer you as a potential police recruit is the opportunity to work in a position of responsibility.  You will recieve more responsiblity in a shorter period of time as a officer.  Simple as that.  Join as a soldier (Not an NCO - you don‘t get to be an NCO until you are promoted MCpl and that will be 4 years away)the first 2-3 years of your time in will be spent as a follower.


----------



## babicma

Sorry I screwed up!

I was thinking NCO as being a private also. I mean going through the ranks up to NCO then going officer.

I remember in the Navy the short year I spent it seemed like the officers that came off the street had no clue as to being a sailor. All their were were a bunck of paper pushing yuppies. Thats what they looked like and the NCO‘s were the real deal. The first time I noticed it was in my BRT graduation when the officers were marching and doing the drill. They had no snap and no stomp. Thats when I got the idea that "thank GOD im an OS and didnt go in as an Officer!"

Cheers!


----------



## ggranatstein

Ouch!

This officer-bashing has run rampant. 

Does anyone have anything positive to say about us?

It‘s very easy to pick on the guy / girl in charge. It‘s very easy to say that you could do better. It‘s not as easy to actually do it.

If you think that the officer corps is in abysmal shape - become and officer and help change it! Just complaining will get us nowhere.


----------



## Michael OLeary

If we‘re going to measure the effectiveness of the officers solely on their drill performance, shall we also measure the effectiveness of NCOs solely by the quality of their writing? Generalized comparisons between the officer and NCO corps are usually poorly presented, wrongly situated and, at the heart of it, incorrect in context, content and tone. We no more enrol officer candidates to become drill gods than we enrol our NCMs to become expert staff writers. And yet in some cases, we cultivate high standards of both skills in select officer and NCOs. Bashing one or the other group on the context of narrow single-skill comparisons is a waste of time.

An infantry soldier may spend more time handling and firing weapons than his platoon commander, but of the two only the platoon commander will be running those firing ranges within a few years of recruitment. Don‘t allow the idea that common basic skill sets in the basic training of each allows simplistic comparisons of their later scope of duties and responsibilities.

Mike


----------



## Vigilant

I‘m trying to convey the fact that being an Officer is not always the best choice. It is good if you like being a manager and large amounts of responsibility, but if all you want to do is have some fun and get some good experience then it may not be the best choice for you.

I have talked to so many Officers who said that they wished they were NCMs so that they could get more field work, and heard a lot about people who were Officers just for the power trip.

In this case babicma is looking for some relevant experience that he could put on his application.
I beleive that my point in this context is quite valid.

Michael OLeary:

I didn‘t write that I would NOT accept a Captain. My points were that his experience as an NCM would be much better suited to his stated goal, and that rank isn‘t as much of a factor as his level of physical fitness.


----------



## humint

You‘ll get all sorts of Officers -- good ones and bad ones, from both the street and the ranks. It all depends on the person, nothing more and nothing less. The same exists in the ranks. You get good troopers and you get crap troopers. Such is life and it will always be that way. You take the hand you‘re dealt and you do the best you can with it. 

As for NCM or Officer career path -- it all depends on what you want to get out of it and its applicability to your objective (which is to become an ERT member). Both will do you well. However, you will get more time/hands-on with weapons as an NCM, which may be more important to you. 

In the real world when you apply for a job, you will not be discriminated on the basis of whether you are an NCM or Officer. The fact you were in the CF is what really matters. In my civ job, I work with both former NCOs and Officers, and we all eat in the same lunch room. 

Definitely come in to the Argylls on Wed night. Come by the Recruiting Office and ask for the Recruiting Officer. You‘ll get all the details you need. You can also check out the Argyll website at www.ashofc.ca.


----------



## ggranatstein

Humint,

How is your back?


----------



## portcullisguy

I‘ll be honest, if I were a police service, I would hire the person I thought best suited to be a police officer, regardless of whether that person was an NCO, officer, or even in the military at all.

Keeping in mind you need at least 5 years of "primary response" policing experience before you can even qualify to apply for an Emergency Response Unit with an Ontario police service, joining the military may not necessarily help or hinder you -- you need to be a competent police officer first.

Often, there are idealogical differences between the police and the military, in the way they do things, and in SOME people, this can be a hinderance.  For others, they can extract the best from each and be better at both.

If you want to be a police officer, think first about how you are suited to that career goal, and what qualities you have that can best assist you to that end.  If you want to be a police officer who is also a reservist, take that a step further and determine how you can extract the best qualities of your reserve experience and apply them to policing.  Every person, and every situation, is different.

I am personally in a similar situation.  I got tired of waiting to get on a police service, my career of choice, so I joined the military.  My decision to join the militia was to achieve a personal goal independent of my civilian law enforcement career goal.  However, should I decide later to again apply to be a police officer, I will do my best to take the best parts of the army and put them in my civvy career.


----------



## humint

Hi Habitant: All is good. Long story, but the MIR in Gage did a terrible job diagnosing the problem. I‘m back at it. For my troubles, they‘ve given me a position with some responsibility at the unit. Arrgh. By the way, how are things with you?


----------



## mrhappy1985

"...just make sure that you know the differences between NCM and officer and decide what you want"

Whats the difference between the two really? An officer leads the group, whereas a ncm takes orders?


----------



## mrhappy1985

Sorry about this i thought i was adding to my old thread but it came up as a new post? im not very good with computers. So basically someone said the above quote, can anyone clarify the difference for me?


----------



## Michael OLeary

It‘s one of those issues that‘s difficult to explain to someone that hasn‘t experienced it. And, unfortunately, the Hollywood stereotypres don‘t help one bit.

Consider this brief comparison (it doesn‘t cover every possibility):

You can be an 18 year old private soldier responsible for yourself and your own weapon, expected to be where you‘ve been told to be at the directed tinmings. Most activities will be surpervised by your Section Commander or 2IC and you will seldom be given tasks on your own until you have had an opportunity to prove you can be given such tasks. Your future will be many years of service in the battalion as you increase in rank and experience, but you will always be commanded by the officers of the battalion.

Or you might be a 22 year old (after 4 year university) platoon commander. You will be responsible for the training, welfare and activities of 30 (+/-) soldiers. Some of these soldiers will have infantry training and leadership experience that outweigh your own significantly, but they and you understand that the decisions in the platoon are yours and that you will be held responsible for them. Your future will be alternating tours of duty in and out of the battalion; tours away from the Regiment may be instructional, staff or other types of employment. Tours returning to the battalion will see you in increasing apppintments of responsibility and command over larger numbers of troops.

Another view from my notes:

The young officer brings to the table vigour, freshness, newness, an understanding of the latest interpretation of tactics and leadership as imposed by his/her training, and, ultimately, the vested authority and responsibility which places him/her in charge reinforced by an aggressive need to assert authority because that is what their training experience has expected of them. The Senior NCO brings years of training, experience, knowledge (especially of the unit, resources and soldiers) and, hopefully, maturity and unlimited patience with each new junior officer. The challenge for both is understanding how to balance these contributions for greater effect, the sum is much greater than the whole when both work together, and much less when they don't.

Mike


----------



## Danjanou

> The young officer brings to the table vigour, freshness, newness, an understanding of the latest interpretation of tactics and leadership as imposed by his/her training, and, ultimately, the vested authority and responsibility which places him/her in charge reinforced by an aggressive need to assert authority because that is what their training experience has expected of them. The Senior NCO brings years of training, experience, knowledge (especially of the unit, resources and soldiers) and, hopefully, maturity and unlimited patience with each new junior officer. The challenge for both is understanding how to balance these contributions for greater effect, the sum is much greater than the whole when both work together, and much less when they don't.


Mike that says it perfectly, especially that last sentence.


----------



## Gunnar

Cross-posted (and re-posted)from the Recruiting board.  Someone complimented my on my explanation, and on further reflection, I like it too.
=========
As near as I can tell, being a civilian, the difference between Officer and NCM is roughly the same as being University or College educated. Nothing - bright people will always make their mark.

University teaches theory (the why), and expects you to extrapolate the practical (the how). College teaches you practical (the how) and expects you to do it well. To the extent that you can see the big picture, you will interpolate the theory (the why). 

Both "classes" of jobs are necessary, and both require responsibility. The difference is what you personally get a bang out of doing, and what your own physical and mental abilities allow you to do.

Capt: We will make camp on *THIS* hill. (Oh, Sgt., what would be the best way to make camp on this hill?)

Sgt: We will *MAKE CAMP* on this hill. (Good choice on the hill Sir).

Focus is different, but both use their experience and intelligence to do their part. Captain needs to know the strategic reasons why they camp on the hill. Sgt needs to know how to make a camp, and why camps are made that way. Sgt probably knows the strategic reasons as well or better than the Captain, but he‘s not responsible for it. That‘s why the Captain asks his opinion. Captain may know how to make a camp just as well as the Sgt., but he‘s not responsible for *making* it, just in having it made. Further, a good commander will explain his reasons as far as he can or is allowed so that his NCM‘s can make informed decisions and suggestions, but he‘s not required to - the reasons why are HIS problem.

The difference in responsibility is a biggie. A dumb Sergent can get a bunch of men killed. A dumb Officer can get a LOT of men killed. A good Sergent can save some lives. A good officer can save a lot of lives.

Another two cents from a civilian.


----------



## scm77

This is kind unrelated, but no sense starting a new thread.  What is the largest group of people a NCM can command?  Does it go any higher then a section commander?


----------



## mrhappy1985

good question scm77


----------



## chrisf

> Originally posted by scm77:
> [qb] This is kind unrelated, but no sense starting a new thread.  What is the largest group of people a NCM can command?  Does it go any higher then a section commander? [/qb]


An NCM can command as many people as he‘s assigned...

A section commander is usually a Master-Corpral, with a Sergeant in charge of the platoon, a lieutenant in charge of the sergeant.


----------



## willy

Not to be a jerk, but actually, Just a Sig Op, you aren‘t right.

While it would be possible in theory to have 10000 guys under the command of a Cpl, this wouldn‘t happen in real life.  Officers are supposed to take over command duties starting at the Platoon/Troop level.  

Section Commanders are SUPPOSED to be Sgts, with a MCpl as the section 2i/c.

Platoon Commanders are SUPPOSED to be Lts or in some cases Capts.  2 Lts are not SUPPOSED to be really in charge of anything, it‘s intended to be a "learning" rank.  Ideally, they get slotted into a platoon as a 2i/c.  Platoons will also have a WO to advise the officer in charge.

MWOs and CWOs are likewise advisors to higher officer ranks.  MWOs are usually Company Sergeant Majors, for example, and CWOs are Regimental Sergeant Majors.  Pers holding those ranks are not, in theory, supposed to be officially commanding anything themselves, but in practice, they can, and do take over command responsibilities for small sub units when there is a shortage of officers.

Note that everything I‘ve said above is the way it is under "ideal circumstances".  Just a Sig Op probably got the information he posted as a result of seing it done that way, which does happen often.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Just a Sig Op:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by scm77:
> [qb] This is kind unrelated, but no sense starting a new thread.  What is the largest group of people a NCM can command?  Does it go any higher then a section commander? [/qb]
> 
> 
> 
> An NCM can command as many people as he‘s assigned...
> 
> A section commander is usually a Master-Corpral, with a Sergeant in charge of the platoon, a lieutenant in charge of the sergeant. [/qb]
Click to expand...

A section commander is usually a sergeant, actually, with the platoon second in command ranked as a Warrant Officer and called either the Platoon 2 i/c or Platoon Warrant.

On parade, the Company Sergeant Major will "command" his entire company.  In time of war, in the field, it is not unheard of for CSMs to take over entire companies when the officers are all killed or wounded.

Similarly, the RSM will "command" an entire battalion on battalion parades, before the officers turn up.


----------



## willy

Beat you to the punch.  Ha ha.


----------



## chrisf

Ok, my mistake, blame it on the reserve world... where you‘re lucky if you can scrounge up the master jacks let alone a sergeant.


----------



## ZipperHead

> Originally posted by willy:
> [qb]
> 
> MWOs and CWOs are likewise advisors to higher officer ranks.  MWOs are usually Company Sergeant Majors, for example, and CWOs are Regimental Sergeant Majors.   [/qb]


Actually, you have it backwards (sort of). A CSM or RSM could be a Cpl, Pte, Sgt or whatever. CSM and RSM are positions, not ranks. ****Usually*****, a CSM is a MWO, and a RSM is a CWO, but not always. I have had SSM‘s (Squadron Sgt‘s Major) who were WO‘s. In war, once the feces hit the oscillating cooling device, it wouldn‘t be uncommon for a "mere" Cpl or Sgt to be the CSM after the higher-ups bought the farm (that‘s when you hope the guy higher up in the food chain was paying attention during orders.....).

I was going to throw in my opinions on the difference betwixt an officer and an NCO (don‘t even get me started on the name/policy change from NCO to NCM.....), but if you want my ***honest*** opinion, PM me (this board can be read by anyone, and my PER has already suffered enough lately from my "negative" attitudes regarding CF, Army, Corps, etc policy). 

I‘ll give my somewhat PC explanation in the difference of officer and an NCO: an officer should bring to the table: knowledge of tactics, leadership and what is expected to accomplish the Commanders mission. An NCO executes the plan. Plain and simple. The NCO ***should**** have the experience and knowledge neccesary to accomplish this, and the officer ****should*** be able to plan what needs to be done, and explain this. 

Too many explanations of this devolve into education (formal, that is...... the University of Life has a very steep learning curve, and tuition is very expensive.... I have never stepped foot into a ‘real‘ institute  of higher learning, but I don‘t for a second feel inferior in real world ‘knowledge‘ to a person who has a BA, PhD, or whatever other alphabet-soup acronyms that they paid $50,000 for (or had the luck and good grace to have the Crown and tax payers of Canada pay for....). Nor should any soldier. Sure, a formal education can teach you all the theories, but without the practical application thereof, that‘s all it remains: a theory. My opinion is this: no person should become an officer without first being a soldier for a minimum of 3 years. Walk a mile in my ankle boots before slipping on the Oxfords..... 

It is a great honour to be an NCO, as well as it should be a great honour and priviledge to be an officer. I would hope that all those that have taken the Commission bear that in mind.

I hope that helps, without causing any great grief to the Mandarins (I‘m sure I‘ll hear about it either way....)

Allan


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Allan Luomala:
> ]Actually, you have it backwards (sort of). A CSM or RSM could be a Cpl, Pte, Sgt or whatever. CSM and RSM are positions, not ranks. ****Usually*****, a CSM is a MWO, and a RSM is a CWO, but not always. I have had SSM‘s (Squadron Sgt‘s Major) who were WO‘s. In war, once the feces hit the oscillating cooling device, it wouldn‘t be uncommon for a "mere" Cpl or Sgt to be the CSM after the higher-ups bought the farm (that‘s when you hope the guy higher up in the food chain was paying attention during orders.....).


Wouldn‘t it?  I‘ve never heard of such a thing.  CSMs and RSMs, as you know, run ammo and food and water up, and prisoners and waters back of the lines in action.  I‘ve not ever read of a company being so badly hit they needed a corporal to take over as CSM - so you‘ll need to forgive me if I ask you for an example of such.

Your other comments are reasonable enough, but would be quite interested in hearing of a case where a corporal was made acting CSM.  I don‘t think CSMs were killed all that often anyway; a look at any "roll of honour" from any Canadian unit in either world war will show the majority of losses were among the junior ranks.

The Calgary Tanks lost exactly one SSM killed during all of WW II, for example, and the Calgary Highlanders exactly two CSMs.  That doesn‘t include wounded, missing or captured.  

I would imagine the CQMS would be likeliest to fill in for a CSM (or SQMS in the case of an SSM).  The odds of both being killed in the same action, along with all the platoon 2 i/cs seem to be extremely remote.  The Essex Scottish at Dieppe, for example, lost one CQMS killed and none of the CSMs.

In all of WW II the 48th Highlanders had one CQMS killed and none of the CSMs.  Again, that doesn‘t include the wounded.

Looking at wounded, captured and killed together, the Calgary Highlanders lost one RQMS, two CQMS, and 10 CSMs (not counting those hit more than once).  That‘s for the whole war.  The dates for the CSMS were (including men hit more than once)

18 Jul 44
19 Jul 44
24 Jul 44
1 Aug 44
8 Aug 44
13 Aug 44
8 Sep 44
22 Sep 44
22 Sep 44
1 Nov 44
20 Dec 45
9 Mar 45

If you have a corporal filling in as CSM, I‘d suggest you have much bigger problems!


----------



## ZipperHead

My point (and I‘m always prone to exageration... ask my wife, she‘ll tell you) is that anyone (Pte‘s included) could be called in to fill in for CSM or RSM, without neccesarily being a MWO or CWO (respectively). Rare, sure, but that‘s why we are always trained to be able to fill in for the next rank/position higher (I was the acting Tp WO for 6 months whilst "only" a MCpl.... manning issues.... ain‘t they a b!tch?!?!)

I know that there are always more than a few Cpl‘s and MCpl‘s hoping that the Sgt and WO‘s mess blows up during a function...... (like we had here in Gagtown tonight....). Wouldn‘t be total loss, in my mind   :evil:   

Al


----------



## willy

"Actually, you have it backwards (sort of). A CSM or RSM could be a Cpl, Pte, Sgt or whatever. CSM and RSM are positions, not ranks. ****Usually*****, a CSM is a MWO, and a RSM is a CWO, but not always."

I know that.  I thought I said that in my post.  I stated specifically that I wasn‘t talking about wild flights of worst case fancy, but rather about the way things are intended to be.  What exactly did I get backwards?


----------



## Cae

Just another question: How is the job different if you are an officer instead of a NCM or the other way around.


----------



## McG

The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."   This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).

Officers are the senior leaders of the forces.  In the Army they start as troop/platoon commanders and can raise to the hights of general.  Officers will also fill the bulk of staff jobs through various headquaters.

NCMs at the junior level are the workers of the Army.  However, as they progress they also become increasingly involved in leadership & managment.  At the platoon/troop level, the WO (an NCM) overseas much of the managment issues.


----------



## ags281

McG said:
			
		

> The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."     This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).



It always bugs me that people want to view the military as a business. "Managers, leaders, technicians, operators" : Give me a break. Officer or NCM, everyone's a soldier, and senior NCM's are as much leaders as any officer. It just has to do with the level of the operation that the majority of their attention is focused on; officers are concerned with the overall objective, NCO's take care of the details of working towards the objective (big picture/small picture), and the rest of the NCM's do the work.

As an idealistic overly-simplified example, imagine a group of people currently at point A but heading to point B. They have an officer and an NCO with them. The officer's job is to get the group from point A to point B, while the job of the NCO is to make sure everyone carries their weight and stays with the group. The Jr NCM's move from point A to point B as directed, sometimes ending up at point C if the officer can't work a compass  (in which case the NCO's job becomes tapping the officer on the shoulder and saying "north is THAT way stupi... I mean sir")   . 

All of the levels are equally important, as without any one of them the whole system grinds to a halt. It basically comes down to what level of a situation you like working at. 

Edit:


			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Whoa...where did you dig this one out from?


Good question.


----------



## greydak

Some guys and gals come out of their officer training unfit, sure they might be able to run during PT but come time in the field they suck and believe it or not their history degree is of no use to them.


----------



## Big Happy

Cpl = 4 pay incentives, Capt = 10 pay incentives

You do the math!


----------



## pbi

I recommend that you go ahead and try service in the Reserve. That's how I got started. I spent eight years in the Res as an Inf soldier, then transferred to the Regular Army as an Inf Offr once I decided what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I have now entered my 30th year of service and I don't regret any of it. Although I entered the officer corps via a program designed to bring in officers without degrees, I later (much later...) went on to complete my degree thanks to the Army education program.

As Mike O'Leary wisely stated, be careful about "assuming" that you will get an education out of the Army just because you want one. Post secondary education for NCOs in the Army is normally provided as a means of developing officer candidates. As an NCO,you must be selected as an officer candidate FIRST, before you would be considered for funded post-secondary education. The emphasis is on producng the leaders, not on giving out "freebie" educations. You can ask all you want, but you will have to demonstrate potential as a leader (as well as performance as a soldier) before selection.

However, while serving in the Reserve you can apply for the Reserve Tuition Reimbursement Program, which will provide reimbursement to serving Res soldiers who complete post-secondary education (Contrary to misinformation, this program has NOT been cancelled-the Commander of the Army wants to save it as an excellent system, which it is.)

When I was an NCO I didn't much like officers and I never really thought of becoming one (they didn't like me much, either...) but a Regular Army Sgt Maj convinced me to try it, so I did. It worked for me, but as another poster pointed out, just being an NCO is not in any way a guarantee that you will be a good officer. I have seen some real disasters who never should have "crossed over". But, on the other hand, consider the fact that both MGen Lew Mackenzie and our last Commander of the Army, LGen Jefferys, started out in the ranks. So, it can work out very well too. It all depends 100% on the person.

The Army needs good NCOs and WOs. It also needs good officers. Shoot for what you do best. Good luck. Cheers.


----------



## pbi

Here's a thought: all Army officers should complete recruit training and serve a short stint in the ranks first. What do you think: pro/con? Cheers.


----------



## devil39

Absolutely.   I believe one gains a valuable perspective from the other side of the fence.   This perspective is difficult to impart as lessons to prospective officers.


----------



## alexk

I cant remember who im quoting but it was somthing like this 

walk a mile in my parade boots before you step into those oxfords


----------



## CF104Starfighter

Officers work hard too...


----------



## rdschultz

As a soon-to-be officer cadet, I found this idea a little disheartening when I first heard it mentioned.  Is it not possible for me to be a good officer because I've never spent any time in the ranks? Or will I always be treated with contempt because I wasn't ever an NCM?  I wish I would have joined the Reserves when I was in University, but of course, I can't go back in time.  

Now, with that said, I've obviously had no prior experience, so take the rest of my post with a grain of salt.  I won't lie, I have a tendency to stick my nose into discussions in which I probably don't belong, but I find its overall helpful way to learn about things.  

I can understand the benefit of this proposal, but would the benefits be worthwhile?  You'd have to train every officer candidate twice, (depending of course on what is meant by a short stint).  Or is the MOC training similar enough for NCM's that the additional training for an officer would simply build on it?  If you didn't MOC qualify a candidate before commissioning him, then would the time served in the ranks be all that beneficial?  In other words, would spending a year or so in a general duties/training type of atmosphere as a Private really enable the officer candidate to get a realistic perspective of the "other side"?   

Now, the idea in general is to get Officers with a more well developed understanding of the NCM side of things.  At least I think.  Are there not better ways to approach the overall problem?  Any alternative solutions?  In the current system, do Officers misunderstand NCM's so much that a system like this is necessary?  

I guess my overall understanding of this topic can greatly be enhanced with the answer to a fairly basic question.  What specific shortcomings (with examples, if possible) of the Officer corps would a system like this address?  

And, on a much less serious, logically challenged note, what about the flip side?  Make every Pte. do a short stint as an 2Lt. before he/she gets his/her hook?


----------



## Yard Ape

pbi said:
			
		

> Here's a thought: all Army officers should complete recruit training and serve a short stint in the ranks first. What do you think: pro/con?


I don't think it would work at the recruiting centres.  However, I think we should definatly raise the percentage of new officers that come from UTPNCM.


----------



## Infanteer

PBI:

I tend in theory to agree with the concept.

I've often seen the argument that the Forces is full of good leaders who never spent any time in the Ranks.   This is completely true, and I wouldn't think of arguing against it; I've seen plenty in my short time.   As well, I've also seen the argument that good NCO's do not always make good Officer's.   I won't argue with that either, I am sure we all understand that an NCO and an Officer are two different things, and some cannot make the transition.   However, for the point of this discussion, I am not dealing with CFR's of NCO's but rather selection of Private soldiers who have displayed the requisite abilities to join the professional body of the military officer, so the second argument is irrelevant.

Much of the what I will put forward is formulated from Maj Donald Vandergriff's The Path to Victory, an interesting book on how armies should be organized to fight.   Although written in the context of the US Army, the core of the ideas are clearly applicable to the our Army as well.   Now, for the advantages of taking one's officers from the ranks.   As stated above, service in the ranks is not a prerequisite for good leadership.   However, can anyone think of any feasible argument that shows it to be detrimental to the abilities of a potential officer?   I would contend that service in the ranks would only benefit a potential officer for numerous reasons, such as:

1)   A greater bond and trust between an officer and his troops due to the fact that they have "walked in the Private's boots".   There would be a common bond from the lowest private to the highest General.

2)   As well, it will eliminate the tradition of the Army of placing green lieutenants, usually the most inexperienced members of their command, in charge of what is probably one of the most vital positions within a fighting force, command of a small unit.   Although novice commanders, prior experience as a troop has allowed an officer first hand evidence of how to fight and lead; he watched his platoon commander when he was a Private.

3)   Due to going through recruit training and becoming indoctrinated into the institution of the Army through time in as a Private, a potential officer entering into leadership training has real experience to build from.   Gone will be the days of marching Officer Cadets around and trying to teach a section attack to someone who cannot master the service rifle;   from the start, Officer Training can immediately focus on rigorous training and exercises to prepare for the leadership of troops on combat.

4)   Service in Rank can act as a "weeding-out" process for those who are unable to perform competently as a Private, let alone a leader (Don't deny the fact that you know there are officers that have squeaked through the system).   A rigorous selection exam combined with evaluations of _actual military service_ will provide a much better criteria for selecting officers then high school marks, volunteer hours, and a good job as Squadron Leader at the RMC.

A possible career pattern for one to become an officer would be something like this.

- A recruit joins up and is sent to recruit training.   He does a three year Basic Engagement (approx. 1 year training, 2 years as a Private Soldier).

- Based on recommendations by C-of-C, evaluations, and course reports, potential officers go before a selection board and are selected following interviews, etc.

- Once selected, a potential officer is given the rank of Officer Cadet and sent to the RMC.   There they undertake a three year degree program that gives them a fundamental military education and prepares them to enter the professional Officer Corps.   At the end they receive a B.A. in Military Studies as well as having the ability to minor in a liberal art or science discipline of their choice.   A fundamental military educated surrounded by ancillary educations in various fields (economics, sociology, physics) can ensure the educated vitality of the professional Officer Corps.

- The Military Education should teach Officer's on how to think and approach the chaotic problems posed to a commander operating within the spectrum of conflict.   Leadership cannot be a system of checklists and PAM's; this only invites inflexibility and operational stagnation.   From the start, bold use of initiative and creative approaches to military problems must be inculcated in our future leaders.

- After completion of the Degree, the Officer Cadet should be thouroughly prepared to face the requirement for entrance into the Officer Corps, a intensive comprehensive exam.   The exam should consist of essays on tactics and theory, tactical decision making scenarios, and technical questions regarding military equipment and weapons, etc.   These exams will place emphasis on creativity and thinking outside of the box rather then schemata and processes.

- Following completion of the comprehensive exam, the Officer Cadets are sent on a 6 month Leadership Course that prepares them for leadership in their respective trades.   Upon completion of the course, he is commissioned as a Lieutenant and given his first command.
---

This system would result in only the best rising to positions of leadership.   It would ensure that all officers receive a thourough military education and that they are given the right tools to lead their units with.   Two potential counterpoints I see are that this will result in an older officer Corps.   I would state that this is not the case, as an Officer who was recruited at 18 would be a Platoon Commander at 25; but the qualitative difference allowed by time in the Ranks as well as a comprehensive military education ensure that the 25 year old is in a much better position to exercise his command.
The more prominant criticism would point to the fact that our current requirements for Officer's could not be supported by this single "funnel" of Officers.   would challenge this argument on two counts:

1) A good leader would make it through any system.   If anything, the Officer Corps benefits from a more stringent winnowing of the "wheat from the chafe"   The case where someone gets accepted to RMC only to wash out of their selected trade only to burden the Forces as a PAFFO (This is a case I can personally recount, I am using it as an example) will not happen, only the best will advance.

2) The percentage of our Army that belong to the Officer Corps is 21%.   I've argued before that this seems excessively high in that we have one leader for every four troops (We could make an entire CMBG out of Commissioned Members).   Perhaps, with the appropriate organizational changes (another discussion....) and a readjustment of this figure, the required annual "uptake" of officers could be supported by the system proposed above.

Well, there's the beans from me.   This structure of the Officer selection seeks to maximize professionalism and excellence within the Officer Corps to the highest possible degree.   As an ideal, we can demand no less; and within this demand is contained the requirement to serve a Basic Engagement within the Ranks of the Army.

Thoughts to chew on,
Infanteer


----------



## Yard Ape

If all the best leaders went to become officers @ Cpl & MCpl, what would that do to the quality of our Sr NCOs?


----------



## Infanteer

> If all the best leaders went to become officers @ Cpl & MCpl, what would that do to the quality of our Sr NCOs?



Very valid, we would not want to leave the backbone of the Army, the NCO Corps, deficient of good soldiers.  However, I believe two factors would play in this:

1)  Of course, not all troops would express interest in seeking a commission.  They would be groomed for NCO positions.

2)  As well, there are differing factors in the character and abilities of a soldier that would indicate he would be a better NCO or a better Officer.  We freely admit that "Not all NCO's make good Officers because they can't make the transition...."; this would imply that their is a different skill set and approach to being an Officer as opposed to being an NCO.  These skill sets must be taken into consideration today in the way we groom our future NCO's; otherwise we would simply be CFR'ing everyone of modest ability because "they looked like good leaders." The role of the officer and the NCO are two separate beasts; with this in mind the C-of-C should be responsible for watching its soldiers and grooming both potential officers and junior NCO's and guiding them down the requisite path.  The obvious question is what are the characteristics of a potential NCO (x) and how do they differ from the characteristics of an aspiring Officer ?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Infanteer has made some interesting points, and has offered a valid argument, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

I would add the following:

-No officer would be promoted past the rank of OCdt until all trades training requirements for his trade have been successfully completed, wherupon the candidate would be promoted to 2Lt.

-Promotion to Lt would follow after the officer has completed a minimum of one year employed in his primary trade at a Unit, and a PER of at least "met standard" has been written on him.

-Promotion to the rank of Capt would be strictly merit based, and in no case would more than 80% of eligible Lt be promoted in any one year.  (I would add this last to the rank of Cpl as well).  This may well mean the possibility of career Pte/Lt, which has happened in every army I know of, less ours.


----------



## ags281

I had entertained the idea of officers having to serve some time in the ranks a little while ago, but reached the conclusion that it causes more problems than it's worth. 

1) Two tiered isn't just a healthcare term. A Pte and a Pte (officer candidate) will not be treated the same. Having a two tiered system among the ranks is bound to lead to problems by dividing what should be a cohesive group.

2) DEO what? Is anyone in their right mind actually going to say "well, I have this engineering degree now, I think my best option is to get paid as a Pte for three years just for a chance that I'll be selected as an officer eventually rather than ending up back where I started but three years older"? Everyone will go for civie jobs, because then at least they know what job they're signing up for.

3) It's all about the bling. University grads make more money in the civilian world than those without a degree. Why would they sign up for Pte pay and no guarantee of moving up to officer pay when they can get far more money civie side? While you could pay a Pte with a degree more than one without to offset this, the problem of division/resentment among the ranks mentioned in point 1 would only get worse.

4) We're recruiting who? If the RMC route was such that they did their time in the ranks right after highschool and were then offered officer training and university education after this (but only if they do well) some would apply. Problem is, how likely is it that the hard workers will join up when they've already been accepted to Waterloo, UBC, U of T, etc with no strings attached and possibly with scholarships? The CF would be blading itself by recruiting primarily from the mediocre down - those that didn't make the cut for university on their own. 

I could go on with problems in implementing this plan through all trades/elements forces wide, but I think you get the idea.

There are definitely some changes that could be made in the training of officer candidates. A common initial training phase (basic and indoctrination into your respective element) might be an option, using it as an extended IAP. After the common phase, where everyone would be ranked "recruit", those that aren't showing much promise of officer potential could be given the option of continuing as NCM or CT. Those that do show promise would then continue on to officer training now firmly grounded in basic soldiering/sailing/air forcing (hey, they don't all fly   ).

I also like Lance's suggestion about the rank progression. We could do with a bit of rank deflation at all levels (pay issues would have to be sorted out of course, but that's certainly achievable). We'd just have to be careful about lengthy delays in training as I can't see an extra year at OCdt due to course backlog leading to happy personnel.


----------



## Infanteer

Lance:



> -No officer would be promoted past the rank of OCdt until all trades training requirements for his trade have been successfully completed, whereupon the candidate would be promoted to 2Lt.
> 
> - Promotion to Lt would follow after the officer has completed a minimum of one year employed in his primary trade at a Unit, and a PER of at least "met standard" has been written on him.



I would do away with the rank of 2nd Lt. altogether.   The Officer's Time in Ranks combined with 4 years as a Cadet should be a decent enough period to ensure he ain't green as grass.   Having a Lieutenant as the entry level Officer Rank still means he has 7 years in the military.



> Promotion to the rank of Capt would be strictly merit based, and in no case would more than 80% of eligible Lt be promoted in any one year.   (I would add this last to the rank of Cpl as well).   This may well mean the possibility of career Pte/Lt, which has happened in every army I know of, less ours.



Promotion from Lieutenant to Captain would be dependant on various promotion criteria, one of which should be a "Captain's Exam".   Success in all the criteria should be necessary for promotion to Senior Platoon commands, staff positions, and consideration for staff school.

ags281:



> 1) Two tiered isn't just a healthcare term. A Pte and a Pte (officer candidate) will not be treated the same. Having a two tiered system among the ranks is bound to lead to problems by dividing what should be a cohesive group.



People would not be recruited as Private (officer candidate).   All soldiers sign a basic engagement for three years.   Near the end of a soldiers BE (no sooner, possibly after) at the recommendation of the C-of-C, the Private can elect to enter into the Officer Selection Process.



> 2) DEO what? Is anyone in their right mind actually going to say "well, I have this engineering degree now, I think my best option is to get paid as a Pte for three years just for a chance that I'll be selected as an officer eventually rather than ending up back where I started but three years older"? Everyone will go for civvie jobs, because then at least they know what job they're signing up for.
> 
> 3) It's all about the bling. University grads make more money in the civilian world than those without a degree. Why would they sign up for Pte pay and no guarantee of moving up to officer pay when they can get far more money civie side? While you could pay a Pte with a degree more than one without to offset this, the problem of division/resentment among the ranks mentioned in point 1 would only get worse.



Well, what can I say.   We should be demanding the desire to be part of a professional fighting force as the primary incentive to join, rather then looking to financial gain the only reason to serve.   I never really cared what I was making when I joined the Army; if they keep you busy enough it usually isn't a factor.   The military will always lose if it attempts to attract people through financial incentive; it will get people who jam out when they realize they aren't getting payed enough to risk their life and the civilian sector will always be able to offer more money.   Bottom line: nobody joins the Army to become a millionaire. usually its a whack of other things that tend to keep us around.   Of course people should be able to live comfortably, but financial aggrandizement is usually low on the list of priorities for career soldiers.   

If someone is interested in a career in the Army, then they should be interested in serving; if they prove they have the requisite abilities, then a commission should be offered.   Just because a person has a degree should not make entry into the Officer Corps suddenly available.   As well, if someone refuses to join the Army because they don't want to serve in the Ranks then we are probably better off without them.



> 4) We're recruiting who? If the RMC route was such that they did their time in the ranks right after highschool and were then offered officer training and university education after this (but only if they do well) some would apply. Problem is, how likely is it that the hard workers will join up when they've already been accepted to Waterloo, UBC, U of T, etc with no strings attached and possibly with scholarships? The CF would be blading itself by recruiting primarily from the mediocre down - those that didn't make the cut for university on their own.



The answer to this goes back to the previous questions you asked.   The Military Education shouldn't be offered as a bone to high school kids who think they can do a stint in the military for a free University education.   It is meant as an essential part in training an officer to lead his soldiers and his units into combat.   Like any other course in the military (Staff College, Recce Course, Basic Training), the Military education is an essential building block to the Military Profession.   Treating it like a "bonus" or a box to check off degrades from the profession.   If a person is interested in going to university first, then let them join late; they can be accelerated through the RMC phase if they are selected through the Officer Selection Boards after time in the Ranks.   However, they still have to meet the fundamental requirements of the Military Education.


---

As well (I know this sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but I have to be realistic), but I think a system like this needs an incentive to get people through the door into the Private positions like the US GI Bill.   If we had some sort of education plan that reimbursed people who served a 3 yr Basic Engagment as a Rank, then you could increase the pool to work from in the Army; as well, it could act as a consolation prize for those who wanted but failed selection for RMC.   Those tagged by the C-of-C as potential Officers could be extended the offer for an attempt at a commission and a high quality military education.   Those who joined with the object of becoming an officer and weren't selected could get out on the completion of their BE and get their 4 years trade school or university payed for (perhaps with the condition of reserve service?).   Those who didn't care for either and wish to continue their career as a Rank will compete for JNCO positions if they are eligible.   Of course, there will be those who do their three years only for the education reimbursment, and that is fine; as long as they give three years of honorable service, then they are free to leave if they so choose.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Of course, the other side to AGS281's argument is this one.

Why would a guy who has a degree in Engineering join the army?  I would say that about 80% of the time, it's because he failed to find a job as a civilian, and in desperation, joined up to pay off his student loans.

I forgot to mention why I would stop the automatic Capt thing.  We had a Capt going through Armd Phase courses.  He had failed out of his original trade, and had completed RMC.  He was promoted Capt, with absolutely zero qualifications, on course with 2Lt and Lt's.  That does nothing to promote cohesiveness, or anything else, especially once you factor in the pay discrepency.  "Yeah, I failed my training, and yeah, I get paid much more than you.  And I have done nothing to deserve this promotion.  So what?"

To my way of thinking, a Capt in our army is roughly the equal of a Lt in just about any other army, and our Lt is the equal of 2Lt's.


----------



## ags281

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Of course, the other side to AGS281's argument is this one.
> 
> Why would a guy who has a degree in Engineering join the army?   I would say that about 80% of the time, it's because he failed to find a job as a civilian, and in desperation, joined up to pay off his student loans.



80% huh? 99% of statistics are also made up on the spot . I don't think it's anywhere near 80%, as I know a number of engineering students who will be or are in the process of joining for reasons other than what you say. When I have my degree(s), I too will be going reg force for reasons other than those (job situation isn't that bad in my field, and I don't have any loans).



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> People would not be recruited as Private (officer candidate).   All soldiers sign a basic engagement for three years.   Near the end of a soldiers BE (no sooner, possibly after) at the recommendation of the C-of-C, the Private can elect to enter into the Officer Selection Process.
> 
> ...
> 
> Well, what can I say.   We should be demanding the desire to be part of a professional fighting force as the primary incentive to join, rather then looking to financial gain the only reason to serve.   I never really cared what I was making when I joined the Army; if they keep you busy enough it usually isn't a factor.   The military will always lose if it attempts to attract people through financial incentive; it will get people who jam out when they realize they aren't getting payed enough to risk their life and the civilian sector will always be able to offer more money.   Bottom line: nobody joins the Army to become a millionaire. usually its a whack of other things that tend to keep us around.   Of course people should be able to live comfortably, but financial aggrandizement is usually low on the list of priorities for career soldiers.



This process would guarantee that nobody with a degree, except Lance's desperate, would ever consider joining. We should absolutely expect that applicants join because they want to, not to get rich. While you might not care about money when you are busy, I guarantee your family (or ability to build one) would be greatly affected by it. I am not suggesting that we use salary as our recruiting incentive, but pointing out that people who want to join for the right reasons should not have to make large sacrifices in financial and family stability to do so. Is accepting unlimited liability not good enough these days?



> The answer to this goes back to the previous questions you asked.   The Military Education shouldn't be offered as a bone to high school kids who think they can do a stint in the military for a free University education.   It is meant as an essential part in training an officer to lead his soldiers and his units into combat.   Like any other course in the military (Staff College, Recce Course, Basic Training), the Military education is an essential building block to the Military Profession.   Treating it like a "bonus" or a box to check off degrades from the profession.



I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not consider a university education to be equivalent to a military one, nor vice versa, and I am in no way suggesting that any education should be a box to check off. I am pointing out that an intrinsic result of the structure proposed would be that people who did not get into university on their highschool grades but want a degree will naturally be drawn to the possibility of getting one through the military, as other means to that end are no longer an option. I see this as a flaw, not a benefit.



> If a person is interested in going to university first, then let them join late; they can be accelerated through the RMC phase if they are selected through the Officer Selection Boards after time in the Ranks.   However, they still have to meet the fundamental requirements of the Military Education.



This is all well and good to say, but if you were looking for a long term career, would you sign a contract for a job described as "we'll let you know what you're doing three years from now" and salary of "we might offer you a competitive salary later, but don't bet on it"? Even without the unlimited liability clause I doubt you'd sign on. Most people with a degree already in hand, regardless of how much they might want to join for the right reasons, would likely go with their second career choice.

I see university and military education as separate entities, both necessary for today's officer. A university degree is necessary because, while unrelated to leading under fire, an understanding of the world outside of your little bubble is necessary to operate in a complex geopolitical environment. While no guarantee, the university degree is currently the closest thing to an indicator of such knowledge that we have. We already have numerous ways for people with degrees to join, or those already in to get one. Why mess with that?

Rather than turning everything on it's head, why not focus on how our military education is delivered?



> As well (I know this sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but I have to be realistic), but I think a system like this needs an incentive to get people through the door into the Private positions like the US GI Bill.   If we had some sort of education plan that reimbursed people who served a 3 yr Basic Engagment as a Rank, then you could increase the pool to work from in the Army; as well, it could act as a consolation prize for those who wanted but failed selection for RMC.   Those tagged by the C-of-C as potential Officers could be extended the offer for an attempt at a commission and a high quality military education.   Those who joined with the object of becoming an officer and weren't selected could get out on the completion of their BE and get their 4 years trade school or university payed for (perhaps with the condition of reserve service?).   Those who didn't care for either and wish to continue their career as a Rank will compete for JNCO positions if they are eligible.   Of course, there will be those who do their three years only for the education reimbursment, and that is fine; as long as they give three years of honorable service, then they are free to leave if they so choose.



I'd be all for something like this.


----------



## pbi

Folks: So far, some excellent answers. Both sides of the coin are being well argued, although the "con" side seems to be edging slightly ahead in terms of the practicality of their arguments (not to say cynicism... >) It is great to see the very high levels of belief, emotion and thought going on here. Obviously some of us do care about this Army of ours. In my own opinion, I tend to favour a brief stint in the ranks as a preparation for Army officers, since I see it as a training economy, but I have to agree that it could pose some drawbacks in terms of recruiting the candidate who already has the degree.

Shifting gears slightly, what do people think makes a good officer? Lets say the top three qualities, as well as the top three behaviours on the Sh*t list for officers. I'm particularly interested to hear what NCOs/WOs have to say, since I was one. I know what I think about it: what do you folks say? Cheers.


----------



## LCISTech227

Good Morning,
      My top three good qualities in an officer are:
                                   1) Honesty;
                                   2) Loyalty; and
                                   3) Integrity.

     These are in my opinion the most important things an officer(goes for a lot of Sr NCM's too) should possess.  I think they are pretty much self explanatory, but I will go into detail:  Honesty, I would prefer to be told the truth as to why I have to do something rather then some b.s. reason.  Loyalty, I believe that an officer should have his troops listed first in the grand scheme of things,  I've seen too many that don't care about anything but their own career progression.  Integrity,  having the stones to say that they screwed up, or give credit where credit is due.  I think that these qualities should be in everyone in the CF, but more so in Officers.

     As a sidebar, I'm currently in the process of applying for UTPNCM, and believe that most of the best officers I've ever known have spent time in with the troops.  That being said, I know some damn good ones that were DEO's.  I think that pointing at a small percentage of officers who maybe don't cut it in the CF is an improper method, because let's be realistic how many privates don't cut it?

Cheers,


----------



## combat_medic

Geez Infanteer, you need to put some more through and detail into your posts 

In any case, I think that having new officers serve as Privates first is an excellent idea! While I know many good officers who were never NCMs first, it took them far longer to sort their $hit out than the others who had NCM experience, and especially NCO experience. 

Food for thought; you take a 20 year old corporal and give him some leadership training... are you going to throw him in the Pl WO position right away? No, first he's 2IC of a section, hopefully under an experienced MCpl or Sgt, let him teach a basic course as a 2IC, give him a year or two of experience and after a year or two, eventually he gets command of a section.

Now, take the same 20 year old and give him a degree. He (in theory) completes his phase training in under a year and is a 2Lt. What do we do to him? Make him a Platoon Commander. No 2IC position, no one to mentor under, and he's going to make all his mistakes in full view of the Platoon. He's still trying to figure out the soldiering business, let alone being a leader and a commander and will, understandably be still trying to find his feet. Would you make a new private with a year in a section commander? Then why would you make a new officer with a year in a Platoon Commander?

I agree that the whole system would be tedious and costly to implement, but I think the experience would be invaluable. Give the officers time to figure out how to be soldiers. Let them get comfortable with their equipment, weapons, fieldcraft and other basic soldiering skills before you expect them to be in command of a formation. Maybe give them some kind of 2IC position where they can be under someone senior to learn the ropes. Ever had a shiny new 2Lt trying to figure out how to read a map when the troops haven't slept in a day or two? Mistakes will be made; privates do it all the time and it's expected, so why aren't we smart enough to aknowledge that it will happen with officers too? So, let's let them make their mistakes somewhere where it's less visible and less costly to the whole.


----------



## pbi

Infanteer: You stated:

_The percentage of our Army that belong to the Officer Corps is 21%.  I've argued before that this seems excessively high in that we have one leader for every four troops (We could make an entire CMBG out of Commissioned Members).  Perhaps, with the appropriate organizational changes (another discussion....) and a readjustment of this figure, the required annual "uptake" of officers could be supported by the system proposed above._

I have to wonder about the source of your data. Is that for the actual Army MOCs in Army jobs, or for all MOCs and commands across the CF? For example, the RegF Inf is severely short of officers at the Capt level, while the RegF Artillery is in a similar boat (in our Bde they can fill only one of the three Arty FTSO positions, for example). On the Res side, taking our Bde as an example, most of our 16 units have only a fraction of their required number of officers, and officer recruiting/retention is one of our biggest challenges. Taking LFWA as a whole, for another example, out of a strength of roughly around 8-10,000 RegF and Res, I doubt there is any way we have an officer/NCO ratio of anything like what you are quoting.

If you are figuring in NDHQ, I guess you could be closer to the mark, but most people in NDHQ are not employed in "Army" positions and have no direct contact with troops. The Air Force also tends to skew the results, as they have a somewhat higher ratio of officers due to our Canadian requirement that a pilot must be a commissioned officer.

I'm not saying you're totally out to lunch-I'm just wondering what your source is. Cheers.


----------



## dutchie

Others have posted while I was typing, but here are my top 3 good and bad anyway.....

The top three characteristics of a good Officer:   

1-Leadership (obvious, I think) - A good officer would have the ability to inspire his troops. Obedience to officers is not an optional response for NCMs, but the value of inspired soldiers is immeasurable.

2-Organization - Nothing short of cowardliness or incompetence will kill trust in an officer quicker than a lack of organization. A well organized Officer shows confidence in his own abilities, and breeds confidence in his troops.

3-Respect for troops - Officers must balance this carefully, but showing the troops respect for being the actual fighting element of the Military is essential. Occasionally, an officer will come along that views his troops as lesser beings, and will often receive only the required amount of support and dedication from his troops. The pitfall in this attribute is going too far and trying to be 'One of the Guys'. The Officer that tries to do this is just as bad as the Pompous one.

Negative Characteristics (Sh*t list items):   :threat:

1- Leading tired troops on a patrol that goes nowhere, or worse, gets us lost. Our physical energy is a valuable commodity and should not be wasted needlessly. We have no problem kitting up and heading off on a long tab regardless of fatigue, but get us to the objective.

2- Know your role - don't try and do your job and mine. I know my job better than you, and you yours better than me. Micro-managing is also very annoying.

3- Lack of Drive - Although officers are not the primary fighting element, it does not mean they should bring in their gucci camp cots/chairs/etc while the rest of us are biving it. That trip into town to go to Timmy's on day 3 of the ex you thought went unnoticed, well it didn't. Suffer along with us, eat the same food, dig your own trench (if operationally possible), show some drive, and troops will really work hard for you.

I would like to finish by restating that obedience of troops to officers is not optional. However, the characteristics and actions of each individual officer have a significant impact on how troops view them, and consequently, on how effective the troops are in executing their orders.


----------



## Armymedic

Isn't one of the roles of Sr NCO's to train and then guide officers of all levels.

During the training phases are not most instructors Sgts and WO?


----------



## rormson

You guys are raising some excellent discussion points. Here is some more for you to ponder. I am 34, have a Geological Engineering Degree from Waterloo and am pursuit recruitment with 31 CER now that they've set up a Squadron in town. The money is definitely not the motivator, rather a chance to serve and give something back to the country. So I think there are a few of us around who despite the education level (which by the way does not mean ***t it terms of one's intelligence) are willing (or are crazy enough) to get involved with the Reserves. I have been in waiting since March to go before a merit board (all other steps of the recuiting process completed sucessfully). 

The recruiting process really sets out who is and is not encouraged to become a DEO candidate - - I am no better than anyone else in my own mind, have ZERO military experience, but have been asked to proceed with the Officer Training. If going through the ranks is important than I think that 1) the entire recruiting process could be sped up by light years, 2) the CF will have to exclude anyone from Reserve service who has a Master's or advanced Degree because by time your done University, go through BOTP, etc. your going to 50 when your a 2Lt.

A friend of mine who is a Sgt. with the RHFofC in Kitchener says go NCM for many of the reasons you guys say. The Recuiters say that my work experience, etc. will be benificial to the unit. As a private would I really make the same contribution as if I were an Officer knowing what I know from University. Talk about confusion. I anyone has any advice I'm all ears. Regards.


----------



## RCA

Good:
Decision Maker
Takes Responsibility
Delagates

Bad:
Aversion to advise
Self before Mission
Waffling

Going back to the previous argument regarding Officers and NCMs. The two main reasons seem to be technical competence and teaching humility. While there should be opportunities to advance from the Ranks, it shouldn't be  a prerequisite. The walk a mile in my shoes is a non-issue

Leadership is what officers are for and that is a function of personality. At all levels of command in Canada is an NCO "adviser. So at the Plt level, although you have the greenest Lt, accompanying him is one of the most seasoned and experienced members of the Inf - his Plt WO. The CO commands the Regt but who is the Drill/Technical expert, the one who knows the troops and advises the CO accordingly, the RSM. And this goes all the way down the chain.

Officers must look at the big picture, whereas NCMs are taught a narrower view. This is the hard transition and whether you are a NCM first has no bearing.


----------



## DrSize

Interesting topic....I am a hopeful DEO.....and I am not trying to get in because I do not have a job, I think that was a horrible assumption to make.  I have a job that pays a little over 2x what a 2nd lt makes, so that is not my motive at all as I will be taking a huge pay cut, am I the exception?? possibly but I don't think so.  Sure all the people with pysch, soc, kin, geography, history etc. degrees don't have jobs so they may be doing it as a last resort, but for someone with a good degree (nursing, engineering, commerce) they most likely are giving up a job that pays more than the forces does.....


----------



## Marine837M

Reading the posts,I feel every soldier,NCO or commissioned rank should possess all the above mentioned.
It is true an officer needs that edge of qaulities to lead men in the field,be it on excersise in peace time or on the battle field.It is difficult to actually define the role of an officer.... and from a recruit or NCO rank ask ourselves...

What is it should an officer possess to lead me through hell so that I can survive ?
Why should I follow this man?

To be honest all of our views will be different as every rank holds there opinons of there own CO in an individual way,or any other officer.My experience is that an officer needs all the qaulities that we all possess to serve in the armed forces.

The Royal Marines are the only service in the British Armed Forces whos officers train with there men,same course same training centre everything.and to be honest this type of bonding forms all the above mentioned comments and the recruits will follow who they believe in.

The whole question is a lot bigger than just a few words of Trust,Loyalty,Honour...we all have these as soldiers and our nation trusts us all with these codes.

Just a view.

Marine837M


----------



## Inch

RCA, you hit on pretty much what I was thinking.

Now a few of my own points, you all brought up some very good points but I'm going to put some thoughts out that may anger a few people.

First one is career progression, sure you're going to get an inexperienced Lt leading a platoon, but his next step is to coy comd, then into the hierarchy of the HQ.   As someone else stated, you've got a crusty and very experienced WO, MWO, etc with you along the way, he provides input, you make the decision, that's the meat of an officer's job.   You have to make the decision that no one else may want to. You're also responsible for the outcome of said decision, no one else will take the blame or the praise. 

This next comment is going to stir up a hornet's nest I know, if you make a university educated person do 3 years in the ranks with a person that has a grade 10 education (which is by the way the min req to join as an NCM), I don't think it's going to do much for cohesion.   There's always going to be resentment there because some thought processes are going to come easier to the educated person. Thus from the get go, you've got essentially 2 different people doing the same job.   It's going to affect the uneducated guy's confidence since things will seem to be harder for him to understand, not that they are harder, just that a university education teaches you to think on so many levels. 

If we have a look at officer training as it stands, I'm a pilot but we're going to look at the army side of stuff. CAP, Ph 3 & 4 take about a year to do, following 1 year of basic & french school. University degrees are 4 years for honours and 3 for general degrees, most take 4 year degrees, RMC for example is 4 years period. We're now at 6 years of training, if you want to add 3 years of time in the ranks it's now going to take you 9 years to get a platoon comd. This is all well and good, but it's taken half of someone's career to get to be a Capt platoon comd, now in the next 26 years (assuming they're going for a full career) they have to advance to CDS.   It's not realistic, no one will ever make it that high, not to mention that the average career is 25-30 years. So my question is who would lead this band of merry men? A General who spent 9 years getting to Lt and 20 years going from Lt to Gen (8 rank changes)? So less than 3 years in each rank, he's got to do advance operations courses, staff school, etc, as well as instructing at those levels, the amount of time he'd actually spend at each rank physically leading someone would be maybe 1.5 years.

Personally, I don't think that being an NCM for 3 years would have made me a better officer, you don't need to have been a Pte to understand when someone is in the hurt locker and needs a break. You don't need to have been a Pte to understand the significance of bringing a haybox of Timmy's coffee to your guys on a winter ex. I think that in the quest for better officer's, one could simply implement a better recruiting system to help weed out the careerists and gold diggers, leaving you with Officer's capable of leading and caring for troops without having to add 3 years to the officer training.

Since it was mentioned a couple times, the seemingly top heavy CF being skewed by the Airforce req for Pilots and Navs to be Officers.   We're not the only ones, RN, RAF, USAF, USN, etc, the armies of our 2 closest allies are the only ones that have NCMs as pilots so it would seem that NCM pilots are the exception rather than the rule the world throughout.

Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I like the most of Infanteer's ideas,but being a grade 10 drop-out I do have my own little beef. It seems that everybody wants to equivocate a degree with knowledge and, in my opinion thats wrong. I think the days of officers needing more education because your average foot soldier signed his name with an X belong buried in the far past. Under the scheme proposed I would like to see where everyone has the chance to become what they wish no matter what it said on their little pieces of paper prior to joining. However as part of the consideration process the military should offer the chance to complete courses on the side and this can be used to see who is willing to put up the extra effort to succeed..
To sum up, I do have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to what is perceived as "higher education". This does not make anyone a better leader, more intelligent, or have a " broader view of the world".

Inch.... you posted while I was typing so this isn't aimed at you but .........oops, sorry had to swat a hornet...they're everywhere!! >
Bruce


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Methinks that for the idea of officers going through the the ranks, one has to make a firm distinction.

Several armies allow officers in with degrees, similar to ours.   However, there are also many armies that do not allow officers with degrees to join the combat arms, or, rather, the Armour and Infantry.   In these armies, the recruit joins, goes through training, and is identifiesd as a potential officer type.   This person is "tagged" on his file, but is not informed, until he has served for one year in a platoon.   Then he goes through officer training, serves as a Lt, and only then, is sent to their equivelent of RMC.   Officers join directly to all other trades, including Artillery and Engineer.   The pro, and the con, is that only Armour and Infantry Officers attend their version of RMC, all other officers join after attending civilian universities.   These armies, BTW, include the German, Israeli and the Danish armies, all of which are conscript armies, which may have a bearing on the issue.   However, I always liked that idea.

BTW, Bruce, you made it to Grade 10?  Wow.  Congratulations.


----------



## Armymedic

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Inch.... you posted while I was typing so this isn't aimed at you but .........oops, sorry had to swat a hornet...they're everywhere!! >



Bruce was that a shot at the Griffon driver refering to the F-18 name like that? ;D


----------



## Inch

You sonofa.....I'm no Griffon driver  :crybaby:

Bruce, I don't equate a degree with having more knowledge, believe me, I didn't learn anything in university that I couldn't have learned in the mess. You my friend are the exception, but I have, in my time, met quite a few people with grade 10 educations that don't have a shmick of how the world works and as such are quite limited in their opinions and usually leads to comments like "f***ing officers"

Unfortunately, universities req high school diplomas and the military would like it's officers to have university degrees, so for the most part, the hoops are going to have to be jumped through if you want to head down the road to "I'm a General and I've got a driver and my own car and ....".

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer

Well, this is a pretty busy thread, and I feel that my idea can only stand if I can sufficently deal with the criticism leveled.   So here it goes....

ags:



> This process would guarantee that nobody with a degree, except Lance's desperate, would ever consider joining.



I would disagree.   Again you seem to be equating "degree" with "must be an officer".   My proposition is more directed to getting people from highschool at age 18; I think university graduates would be the exception rather then the norm, but the system will be structured to accommodate them.   However, regardless of whether a person just finished highschool or just finished an Honours in Psyc is irrelevant.   If they are interested in serving in the forces, they will both start on step one, because both are civilians with not a lick of experience in the military.   Officer selection, like NCO selection, will be based solely upon merit.



> While you might not care about money when you are busy, I guarantee your family (or ability to build one) would be greatly affected by it. I am not suggesting that we use salary as our recruiting incentive, but pointing out that people who want to join for the right reasons should not have to make large sacrifices in financial and family stability to do so. Is accepting unlimited liability not good enough these days?



The Officer Corps isn't the only way to make a decent living in the Forces.   We are one of the best paid military forces in the world.   Overseas, Corporal's were making more money then the Platoon Commander, so your salary dilemma really doesn't hold water.

As well, I don't think a soldier with a university education would automatically quit the forces upon failing Officer Selection.   Perhaps he or she wants to stay as a troop for a while and progress to a SNCO.   There would be nothing wrong with encouraging further professionalizing of the NCO Corps through increased education.   Although I would argue that it is not as vital as the NCO's are expert tradesmen rather then expert within a profession (as Huntington has defined it), the quality of our Army can only benefit from an increasingly educated group of SNCO's.   Perhaps we should have a system to provide incentives to Ranks and SNCO's who go out of their way to do this.



> I am pointing out that an intrinsic result of the structure proposed would be that people who did not get into university on their highschool grades but want a degree will naturally be drawn to the possibility of getting one through the military, as other means to that end are no longer an option. I see this as a flaw, not a benefit.



Well, a rigorous set of standards combined with the challenging course of studies at the RMC should ensure that the Officer Corps will not be filled with "underachievers" (although using someones highschool grades as a determinate of their ability to do well in University is only valid for so long; perhaps 3 years in the Ranks can provide a solid grounding of real experience to turn the "underachievers" of highschool into solid students of the military discipline.   The University system calls these "mature students".   As well, with a military school such as the RMC, which is a top class military academy which offers much that civilian universities do not, the opportunity to attend such an institution will probably draw a very motivated crowd of young men and women into the Army.   Those who do not gain entry as an Officer Cadet can leave the Forces with their "GI Bill" that I mentioned earlier; they have something to show for their three years of service and can go on with life.



> This is all well and good to say, but if you were looking for a long term career, would you sign a contract for a job described as "we'll let you know what you're doing three years from now" and salary of "we might offer you a competitive salary later, but don't bet on it"? Even without the unlimited liability clause I doubt you'd sign on. Most people with a degree already in hand, regardless of how much they might want to join for the right reasons, would likely go with their second career choice.



Again, I think you're confusing the issue that a person with a degree should necessarily shoot for a commission.   We should move away from this line of thinking.   The military will take those who wish to work on a short term stint or a long term career within the Army.   If it deems a person to be suitable for an officer position, then it can send them for the requisite training (which should include a military degree).   
Either way, progression to any rank from Private to General should be based on some form of merit; nothing should be guaranteed.   If a person who studied rocks at the UofA for four years cannot comprehend that this is an essential part of the profession of arms, then tough luck for him.   His degree alone should not be the deciding factor in him going straight to Leadership Training.



> I see university and military education as separate entities, both necessary for today's officer. A university degree is necessary because, while unrelated to leading under fire, an understanding of the world outside of your little bubble is necessary to operate in a complex geopolitical environment. While no guarantee, the university degree is currently the closest thing to an indicator of such knowledge that we have. We already have numerous ways for people with degrees to join, or those already in to get one.



A military education is simply another form of post-secondary education.   Studies in tactics, theory, and military history are a sub-branch of the Liberal Arts "tree" that all Universities teach to some extent.   The RMC is an accredited institution, its graduates are awarded a degree that is as good as the one on my wall from UBC.   However, I advocate that a degree based upon a military education is required as it is an aspect of the professionalism of the Officer Corps.   A doctor must study sciences and the human body to gain a general understanding of the medical profession; those who seek to lead and control the use of military force should be no different.

As well, I've advocated that a minor in a separate discipline in order to diversify the knowledge base of the Officer Corps as a whole.   While all Officer's will have a common background with a B.A. in Military Studies, each one will also have experience with economics, literature, chemistry, psychology, etc.   This will ensure that the Officer Professional does not get tunnel vision; the theory and study of War is a cross-discipline affair that involves all aspects of life.



> We already have numerous ways for people with degrees to join, or those already in to get one. Why mess with that?
> 
> Rather than turning everything on it's head, why not focus on how our military education is delivered?



I propose the system as I did because I believe it is the best way to inculcate the ideas of the military profession within those who would lead us into battle.   Just because we have a system now does not mean it is optimal.

pbi:



> I have to wonder about the source of your data. Is that for the actual Army MOCs in Army jobs, or for all MOCs and commands across the CF? For example, the RegF Inf is severely short of officers at the Capt level, while the RegF Artillery is in a similar boat (in our Bde they can fill only one of the three Arty FTSO positions, for example). On the Res side, taking our Bde as an example, most of our 16 units have only a fraction of their required number of officers, and officer recruiting/retention is one of our biggest challenges. Taking LFWA as a whole, for another example, out of a strength of roughly around 8-10,000 RegF and Res, I doubt there is any way we have an officer/NCO ratio of anything like what you are quoting.
> 
> If you are figuring in NDHQ, I guess you could be closer to the mark, but most people in NDHQ are not employed in "Army" positions and have no direct contact with troops. The Air Force also tends to skew the results, as they have a somewhat higher ratio of officers due to our Canadian requirement that a pilot must be a commissioned officer.
> 
> I'm not saying you're totally out to lunch-I'm just wondering what your source is. Cheers.



Sir, I got the data straight from the horses mouth, so to say:

http://www.cds.forces.ca/pubs/anrpt/anxd_e.asp

Although the data is a few years old, I didn't anticipate too much derivation from the estimates for future years.   Given that the Army is 1/3 of the CF strength, I simply took a third of the figures supplied to get my facts; perhaps I may be a point or two off, but I think I am hitting the ballpark.   Here is what I figured

- The figures give the CF Regular Force has about 1275 officers at LCol (Cmdr) and above.   Splitting that into 3 even parts, that gives us about 425 Colonels and Generals.   Of these 425 about 112 are ranked full Colonel above.   Does anyone see these numbers as being excessively high for an Army that has 3 Brigades and no higher fighting formations (Or a fleet of some 20-30 ships or an Air Force of 1 Air Division)?
- Current Canadian Army Officer Numbers as Compostion of Total Force: 21.8%
- Current Canadian Army Officers to Soldier Ratio: roughly 1:4

The general percentage I've seen given in books dealing with organizational trends and efficiency seem to peg 5-10% as the desired percentage.   I guess that number is debateable as well.

However, from the shortages you have given, perhaps this would indicate that NDHQ and other "outside" postings are taking too much officer strength from the fighting forces, or that trade assignments are disproportionate (Branch A has an abundance, while Branch B is lacking).

More to chew on I guess.   Does my math seem to be in the ballpark to you?

DrSize

Thank you, you've proved my point.   Both potential recruits and the military benefit when the opportunity to serve in a dynamic and unique institution is the guiding principle of recruiting.   Of course, the military should ensure that it's soldiers can make a decent living, which it does.   As I have argued before, troops are payed quite well.

Inch



> This next comment is going to stir up a hornet's nest I know, if you make a university educated person do 3 years in the ranks with a person that has a grade 10 education (which is by the way the min req to join as an NCM), I don't think it's going to do much for cohesion.   There's always going to be resentment there because some thought processes are going to come easier to the educated person. Thus from the get go, you've got essentially 2 different people doing the same job.   It's going to affect the uneducated guy's confidence since things will seem to be harder for him to understand, not that they are harder, just that a university education teaches you to think on so many levels.



I think this statement is just ridiculous.   When I was a Private overseas, I was nearly done my University degree.   The fact that I a may have had a better understanding of certain things and a head full of good Jeopardy answers didn't alienate me from my section mates.   You were in the Army, you should understand the dynamics of a small unit and those soldiers who live and fight together.



> If we have a look at officer training as it stands, I'm a pilot but we're going to look at the army side of stuff. CAP, Ph 3 & 4 take about a year to do, following 1 year of basic & french school. University degrees are 4 years for honours and 3 for general degrees, most take 4 year degrees, RMC for example is 4 years period. We're now at 6 years of training, if you want to add 3 years of time in the ranks it's now going to take you 9 years to get a platoon comd. This is all well and good, but it's taken half of someone's career to get to be a Capt platoon comd, now in the next 26 years (assuming they're going for a full career) they have to advance to CDS.   It's not realistic, no one will ever make it that high, not to mention that the average career is 25-30 years. So my question is who would lead this band of merry men? A General who spent 9 years getting to Lt and 20 years going from Lt to Gen (8 rank changes)? So less than 3 years in each rank, he's got to do advance operations courses, staff school, etc, as well as instructing at those levels, the amount of time he'd actually spend at each rank physically leading someone would be maybe 1.5 years.



I layed it out in my initial proposition and have worked it out on paper and by reading through similar ideas; it is not as infeasible as you make it sound.   Take a recruit from highschool at 18.   He goes through BE and is selected at the end to attend officer school (21).   Three years at RMC (A degree can be done in three years, if anything, an extra workload can be a character builder that can be managed in the regimented environment of a military academy) to earn a B.A. followed by comprehensive exams (24) - teach'em French at the University if we insist on bilingualism.   A year of Leadership training in the field (you don't need CAP and basic, covered by time in Rank) followed by commissioning and first assignment by age 25.   Considering that today RMC grads are first assigned at 22-23 following graduation and a fresh DEO is assigned at about 24-25 (4 years Uni + 2 years Officer Training), the system I have proposed is no where near the 9 years you pointed out, rather it would be pretty close to our current trends. 



> Personally, I don't think that being an NCM for 3 years would have made me a better officer, you don't need to have been a Pte to understand when someone is in the hurt locker and needs a break. You don't need to have been a Pte to understand the significance of bringing a haybox of Timmy's coffee to your guys on a winter ex. I think that in the quest for better officer's, one could simply implement a better recruiting system to help weed out the careerists and gold diggers, leaving you with Officer's capable of leading and caring for troops without having to add 3 years to the officer training.



I feel my three years sure did, so I guess it that is a matter of opinion.   What I have proposed here is, in my opinion, "a better recruiting system to help weed out careerists and gold diggers."   Bottom line is, I can't really see any serious disadvantages by having officers do time in the Ranks, while there are express advantages as I mentioned in my propostion.



> Since it was mentioned a couple times, the seemingly top heavy CF being skewed by the Airforce req for Pilots and Navs to be Officers.   We're not the only ones, RN, RAF, USAF, USN, etc, the armies of our 2 closest allies are the only ones that have NCMs as pilots so it would seem that NCM pilots are the exception rather than the rule the world throughout.



I will admit, my proposal pertains specifically to officers within the Army.   The Officer Corps' of the Air Force and the Navy are much more technical and managerial in nature, so they would require a different approach.   However, I would advocate the essential nature for a military education to be present in the training of Officers in those branches.   As one Colonel so eloquently put it "The Air Force, for all its technical knowledge, is ind anger of becoming a mob of glorified truckers in that its pilots understand the airframes that they fly but have a serious deficiency in the doctrinal theories under which they fly them in.   They understand Aircraft and not Air Power." (this was my version of a quote from a journal).

As well, I would advocate a split in pilots.   Those who wish to fly can take a track that allows them to do so for the majority of their career; by taking this path they acknowledge that they will never hold high rank (Perhaps these pilots will be NCO's instead, like WWII or something akin to the US Warrant Officer system) while a separate track is for those who will fly but who will also be experts at the Air War.   They will be commissioned officers who will command and staff the formations of the Air Force.



> Bruce, I don't equate a degree with having more knowledge, believe me, I didn't learn anything in university that I couldn't have learned in the mess. You my friend are the exception, but I have, in my time, met quite a few people with grade 10 educations that don't have a shmick of how the world works and as such are quite limited in their opinions and usually leads to comments like "f***ing officers"



I agree with you here.   Although I would venture that education and intelligence are two separate things, I believe that generally a higher education can open up new horizons and add many "analytical tools" to the thinking mind.   I would like to see Highschool graduation as the minimum for entry into the Forces; like any other institution the standards and competitive nature are rising, and I don't think the Army should be forced to maintain the image of "Green Welfare" or a "Dumping Ground" for failures in the civilian world (not advocating that those without HS fit into this category, just that it seems to be a general perception; why not raise the bar?).

Anyways, good discussion guys.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Inch

Infanteer, your model for getting a 25 year old platoon commander has some merit, though in our current state, training delays are inevitable. I myself waited 20 months to go to Moose Jaw, I was a 2Lt for 4 years. Though I used that time to work on my degree at RMC, and RMC is not the military institution that many would have you believe, it's a university with drill classes. Most the of the military training is done during the summers, ie. CAP, Ph 3, SLT. After some thought, it's closer to 5 years to get a trained Infantry officer, since by the time the Charm school guys graduate, they only have Ph4 to do, add onto that BOTC prior to going and you could get a trained 2Lt Inf O in 5 years, so 23 year old platoon comds. The 6 years was more geared to DEO's. Also, engineering degrees cannot be done in 3 years (any engineer types want to back me up on this?), maybe general arts degrees, but most science degrees are 4 years.  This would work for most of the Army trades, and prior to Unification, it would have worked beautifully, but by unifying the forces and combining some of the training with the 3 branches, we've made our own bed. Pilot & Nav training is too long to be doing during University so it's done after. Basic Flight training in MJ is 6-9 months depending on the weather, basic helo school is 5-6 months, and multi is a little shorter. This is just to wings standard.  With the training delays, I started MJ Dec 2002, it'll be Apr 2005 before I'm operational.



> I think this statement is just ridiculous.  When I was a Private overseas, I was nearly done my University degree.  The fact that I a may have had a better understanding of certain things and a head full of good Jeopardy answers didn't alienate me from my section mates.  You were in the Army, you should understand the dynamics of a small unit and those soldiers who live and fight together.



You're right, but it didn't stop me from wanting to choke the life out of the idiot that lost a C9 barrel, or the beatings we got for guys missing simple curfews. It didn't alienate you because you have a good head on your shoulders and you're probably a stand up guy, I'd consider myself the same way, my education didn't alienate me because I knew when to shut up, even if it sometimes took every last amount of will power. I would say that yes there was a little animosity between the above mentioned wastes of skin and other educated types, but we worked through it.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

I've read some of this topic and skimmed over the rest.   I sort of side with Lance and Infanteer, in that I am becoming more and more disillusioned with this attitude that an Officer 'must have a degree' that the Liberals came out with a few years back... What a crock!   I've got a Degree, as do many NCMs that I have met over the years.   Lance can verify that fact.   As for the comment by Inch about some Grade 10's not having a smick, well I've met many University Grads who couldn't lead a drunk to the pisser, and although they had a paper to hang on the wall, they were useless as tits on a bull.

I think that the CF should get rid of its' University or rethink who it is going to put into it.   I tend to think that we should be recruiting from our Leadership Crses; CLC, PLQ, DP 6A, etc. to find "Officer" material.   Offer those successful candidates the options of advancing as an NCM in their trade, or as an officer in their trade or another.   We would have no more reason to run CAP Crses.   There would not be a requirement for them to 'serve their time' after graduation from RMC.   They would know what it is like in the 'trenches' and already be experienced 'leaders'.  They would also be up on their other training such as Drill, and probably be qualified to give it to themselves.   I believe it would be cheaper and more efficient in the long run.   It was how many of the original cadets to RMC were selected in the early 1900's and may be the turn the wheel must take again.

By the way, what Corporation in the world recruits its' CEO's directly out of High School?   Then why should we?

A little brief, but easier to read than some long Kerry-like dissertation. 

GW


----------



## Michael OLeary

An interesting topic, and one that has been put forward at other times, but never seems to gather sufficient momentum to hold up in the long run.

We have long had an officer corps that is very diverse in the origins of its members, probably more so in the combat arms than other areas. I have trained and served with officers who were ROTP (RMC), ROTP (Civvie U), DEO, OCTP (with and without some university), CFR, Component transfer, prior service as Reg NCM, prior service as Res NCM, etc. Notably, no one group has managed to achieve a lock on the right side of the Bell curve for performance or progression. 

Having been an NCM before entering the Reg F as an officer, I can say that my prior service helped me by lowering the stresses of basic and early leadership trg. BUT, once I was past the level of my previous experience and training, there was little actual advantage based on past experience. (Occasionally some further advantage was derived, for example when I pursued and received Advanced Mortar training, it helped that I had been a mortarman and basic mortar instructor, but this was more specific to the technology of the platoon's weapon systems than anything else.)

I would think that if prior service was such a substantial advatage, it would have been clearly identified by the performance and relative progression of those selected for officer training from that source. It has not, some excellent NCOs make very good officers, others just don't achieve much at all. Captains who try to solve problems the way they did as a 'shining star' Master Corporal aren't well liked by the troops and don't fit the expected requirements of the officers corps. I'm not trying to make a generalization against the option of commissioning NCMs either, just making the point that it's been no more effective than our other selection methods.

One underlying context of the argument for prior service as a soldier seems to be the intimation that the NCO Corps would "select" future officers. And without that NCO approval, no soldier desiring a commission would be considered. Assuming an objective and altruistic methodology for this selection and recommendation process allows the assumption of it's being a valid course of action. The insertion of fallible human nature into the equation completely undermines it. Though I'm sure it wouldn't be more abused than the PER system has been over the years.

At one level it would see the group that occasionally produces a dud NCO now picking likely officers based on performance only as a soldier. And what could possibly be the criteria for issuing such recommendation, or not?

"Bloggins there is an independent thinker, I'm not going to recommend him because he contradicted me."

"Atkins only does what he's told and never more, he'll make a good little platoon commander."


It has been suggested that we wouldn't recruit officers under such a plan, we would recruit soldiers only and then 'we' would choose who might be fit for officer training. What then would be the reaction to an applicant who pronounces at the outset his intentions of being selected and trained as an officer - perhaps the same outrage and disdain for their arrogance that this forum often delivers to the innocently ignorant "I wanna be a JTF sniper" crowd?


And once the unit's merit lists are devised, who gets to pick which soldiers go for NCO training and which for officer training? Shall the officers pull rank and skim the top 10% of the eligible troops, leaving the "B" team in the NCO ranks? Or pick them like school yard sports teams, captained by RSM and CO, possibly mismatching people to jobs in both streams.


As for learning about the platoon commander's role while serving as a soldier, how much does #3 rifleman in #2 section really see and learn about his platoon commander's responsibilities?

Some very good officers have prior experience as a soldier, both from the Reserves and the Regular Force. But this has not been a decisive factor in selecting or ensuring above average candidates throughout their careers. We should continue to use it as a method to promote some to commissioned rank, but I would no more support it as a single stream method than I would any other (including RMC). I think the diversity we have had over the past few decades is probably the best compromise we could enjoy.


----------



## Inch

Michael, that's an excellent post. I agree whole heartedly with diversity in the methods of training. I hate to go back to the pilot thing, but since that's what I do day in and day out, that's what I know best.  I had an instrument rating to go with my civilian commercial pilot's license. I had 230hrs and thought I knew everything I needed to know.  I was on course with guys in Moose Jaw that finished better than me and had zero time flying before joining the military. Some guys were RMC, some were DEO and some were OCTP, we all finished the course and there isn't a single one of them that I wouldn't trust as my aircraft captain.

The major point I have is that given the diversity in human nature, there is no surefire way of getting only the best, short of genetic breeding. Clone wars here we come.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer

Obviously, the lines are set in this and we can argue until we are blue in the face; most of this is a matter of persective with good arguments on both sides.   It remains another one of those ideas or theories that we can continue to look at to define our understanding of our profession.   I will admit that the structure I proposed is a bit drastic in that, as Captain O'Leary has pointed out, it puts "all the eggs in one basket" by taking all our officers from one stream.   Perhaps proposals for modest moves into this direction (regarding recruiting, education, training) would make the issue more feasible and debateable as well as more plausible to the majority.

I completely disagree with this statement:



> "I think that the CF should get rid of its' University or rethink who it is going to put into it.   I tend to think that we should be recruiting from our Leadership Crses; CLC, PLQ, DP 6A, etc. to find "Officer" material.   Offer those successful candidates the options of advancing as an NCM in their trade, or as an officer in their trade or another.   We would have no more reason to run CAP Crses.   There would not be a requirement for them to 'serve their time' after graduation from RMC.   They would know what it is like in the 'trenches' and already be experienced 'leaders'.   They would also be up on their other training such as Drill, and probably be qualified to give it to themselves.   I believe it would be cheaper and more efficient in the long run.   It was how many of the original cadets to RMC were selected in the early 1900's and may be the turn the wheel must take again.



I won't give you a "Kerry-like dissertation" George    as I have argued against this line of thought vigorously in other threads.   However, I will say that history as shown a military education to be one of the essential foundations of the move from amateur adventurism to institutionalized excellence; it was begun by the Prussians in 1806 and copied by all other industrialized militaries to some extent.

What is important is that we understand a degree with a military background not to be "something to make us smarter" or merely a check in the box of requirements but rather as a grounding in the profession of arms.   Would you really want to use a Doctor who had no understanding in the fundamental theories and historical precedents of Medicine?


----------



## Infanteer

http://www.deutschesoldaten.com/

I thought I'd through this in for good measure.  This is from Michael Dorosh's excellent site on the German Wehrmacht.  Although it would be impossible to directly compare with our Army for a number of reasons, this can provide a historical case study to add content to the debate.


----------



## rdschultz

Inch said:
			
		

> Also, engineering degrees cannot be done in 3 years (any engineer types want to back me up on this?), maybe general arts degrees, but most science degrees are 4 years.



True.  Engineering degrees, at least at the UofA, require 6 courses per semester (sometimes 7, but the seventh is always an hour a week lecture with two assignments).  I know several people who dropped down to 5 courses/semester to finish in 5 years, at the same course load as everbody else (including specialization science degrees, I'm not sure about honours).  Engineering degrees at all Canadian schools are fairly strictly controlled by the accredidation board, so other schools might have a slightly different setup, but it works out about the same.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> By the way, what Corporation in the world recruits its' CEO's directly out of High School?  Then why should we?



Comparing CEO's to junior officers is a little unfair.  Corporations routinely recruit junior level managers (or manager trainees) out of University. 


Infanteer:  I'm assuming your idea is geared strictly towards combat arms officers?  How should other officers be recruited, just the same as they are now, or do you have any ideas for an advancement of them?


----------



## pbi

Some people here have commented on the need, or lack thereof, for degrees amongst Army officers. When I commissioned, I did so under the old OCTP propgram, which basically required you to have completed high school, period. I didn't see any need for anything more, and neither did most of my peers who were OCTP or UTPNCM or CFR. When, in the late 90's, the goal posts were moved by the requirement for an all-degreed officer corps, I was furious. I felt that I had been tricked: nobody ever told us non-degreed guys that we were going to become second-class citizens. I went so far as to write to the Director of Military Careers. I never got an answer from them, but around about that time I had a new experience. I was the Canadian student at the USMC staff college in Quantico. All the US officers there (from all five services) had degrees (mostly from civilian universities). They assumed that all officers did, and were very surprised to discover I had only high school. The course was run like a graduate program, and during the year I began to realize that I liked this learning thing. Not only that, but clearly the armed forces of the world's most powerful nation thought this degree thing was pretty important too. The Marines in particular were very big on education: they stressed the study of military history, and the Commandant of the Corps published a Reading List that officers were expected to complete. A post graduate course, the School of Advanced Warfighting, was also run there, just like any post graduate course: all self-paced study, discussion groups and papers.

Anyway, the point is that I came to view education for officers differently. When I got back to Canada, I applied for the UTPO and was accepted. Now that I have a degree, I see the true value of the post-secondary education. It does not teach you how to do an estimate or plan an attack or write a PER better: that is what your purely military training is for. And, it really isn't the "stuff" you learn in University that matters. (I've probably forgotten most of it...) What PSE does, in my opinion, is broaden the mind, teach you to study deeply and in detail, to reason and to understand the arguments and views of others, and to express your views clearly, supporting them with reasoned arguments. It does not teach you "what" to think, it helps you discover "how" to think.

   Just as an example, we spent much of the first term at Quantico studying the Peloponnesian War of the ancient Greeks. Does that sound like a waste of time? Well, it wasn't: it was a perfect example of the formulation of national strategy and its execution through a series of campaigns and political struggles. Very relevant to today, despite all the changes in technology. People, war, strategy and leadership have not changed much, so the detailed study of military history, politics and psychology all have value.


Now, is all of that any good in running a rifle platoon? Maybe not. But, remember this: the officer is intended to go on to bigger things, where these skills and this understanding of history and people are vitally important. Do we really want the higher command and staff positions in our Army filled by people who don't have these skills, or who think learning is "stupid" or "a waste of time"? Anti-intellectualism is not the mark of a healthy officer corps, in my opinion.

Does educating our officer corps (or our NCOs/WOs, for that matter) cost too much? If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. 

The US Army, in its post mortem on its troubles in Vietnam, identified the need for an officer corps that was much more broadly educated, especially in the humanities. They felt that a too-narrow technical specialization (with an emphasis on Engineering) was not productive of the flexible, agile mind needed to fight an unconventional enemy on a modern battlefield. Neither they, nor the Marines, have ever looked back. 

Nor should we. Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

But, just think, today you would not be accepted and well, it seems to have turned out all right.
Bruce


----------



## Bartok5

Hey Fellas,

I have been occasionally "lurking" here for the better part of a year, based on my previous distaste for the rampant immaturity that characterized this board.  I am "coming out" as it were, because many of the established members here have done a very credible (and commendable) job of cleaning up the site over the past 6 months or so.  Not that my personal input matters a whit to the proceedings, I am simply saying that I now feel comfortable rejoining what I perceive to be a wholly rejeuvenated and much more mature discussion forum.

I will keep my first "post-hiatus" input brief, as there is plenty of time to weigh in on various topics as things unfold.  In regards to this specific topic, I must first and foremost express my complete agreement with Michael O'Leary's comments.   He has hit the nail firmly on the head as far as my own personal experience is concerned.  Grade 12, OCTP entry into the Reg F following 6 years as a Res F NCM (Sgt, C Scot R), followed by 17 years of commissioned service in the PPCLI.  At the end of the day, there is no "recipe" for the ideal officer.  I have seen all types come and go over the past 23 years, from all entry programs, all levels of formal (and informal) education, previous NCM service, etc, etc.  At the end of the day, it is the individual qualities of the person which determine success in the commissioned ranks.  "Success" is not a function of approval granted by an officer's subordinates, but any officer would be an utter fool to think that the latter is not terribly important.  Doing the "right thing" by the troops within the constraints imposed by the over-arcing mission and operational context is of the utmost importance.  Does an officer need to have first "marched a mile in the Pte's boots" to understand what it is that their orders entail?  I think not.  Particularly when the officer is a combat arms type who spends his year of classification training being treated like a soldier under the tutelage of Sr NCOs, and then goes on to serve his/her formative years living cheek to jowl with the soldiers that he/she commands from a very junior position.  It has been said before, and it is true - officers and NCOs have different roles.  Success in one aspect of the proffession does not imply success in the other.  Indeed, I have seen more UTPNCM graduates fall flat on their faces as officers than the reverse.  It is a question of perspective and mindset.

As regards the importance of post-secondary education?  PBI - I have the distinct impression that you have been around a long time, and know your stuff.  However, on the matter of "higher learning" I must heartily disagree.  It may be a "nice to have", but the ability to perform in an institution of higher learning is not a quantifiable measure nor an indicator of performance in the commissioned ranks.  The "education debate" has raged for years, and notwithstanding current policies both sides remain firmly entrenched in their beliefs.  We won't resolve anything by re-hashing the various pros and cons of a system which has now embedded post-secondary educational requirements (along with bilingualism) into enrollment and rank-progression requirements.  Suffice it to say that while I respect your personal "eye opening" as a result of PSE, I seriously resent the very system and people who have forced higher ACADEMIC education down the throats of those who joined under different circumstances and have done just fine in what was formerly, a purely performance and potenial-based competitive environment.  As a result of the "shifting goalposts", there are many serving officers who have been marginalized and penalized by adoption of the "degreed officer corps".  Yes, the dinosaurs will eventually die off, but I have no doubt that there was great value in having a mix of officer enrollment programs.  OCTP, DEO, ROTP - they all had their place within the enrollment "melange", and all contributed something to the overall mix.  I don't say this a disgruntled OCTP type 2 years away from my voluntary release at the end of my IE.  I have zero regrets.  All I am saying is that by insisting on a degreed officer corps, the institution has deliberately deprived itself of a wealth of potential recruitment material at the very time when we need it the most.  Furthermore, by placing additional hurdles in front of currently serving officers at the recommendation of "academics" such as Dr Granatstein", we are simply promoting the ongoing exodus of talent as serving members opt to get out of a profession where the goal-posts are ever-shifting.

Just some random thoughts, from someone who has been serving for 23 years on all sides of the fence in question - Reserve/Regular/Non-Commissioned/Commissioned.....

Cheers,

Mark C


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Welcome back Mark. As a serving Infantry officer and from what I gather from those here and your posts here and on other boards you are well thought of and highly respected. Your opinion does matter.


----------



## Korus

I'm an NCM in the reserve, and I'm also studying Engineering at the U of A (Going into my fourth year, which I'm splitting into 2 years so I have more free time for army and setting up my own business). Some people in my unit keep on telling me I should be an officer, because I will be getting that piece of paper.

Anyways, on the "degree for an officer" issue, I'd like to suggest what myself and good buddy of mine have come up with. We call it the "Door Differential Model".

WAY too often at University, while heading between classes and buildings, we notice that people will line up behind a single open door, and wait to go through it. This will be in places where there are sets of multiple double doors, the rest of which will remain closed because people lack initiative. (This also applies for people waiting for other people to leave through one door before they enter it, simply because it's open. Our solution, we go and open the other half of the double-door for ourselves)

Where I'm heading with this is that people, even in University, often don't have the initiative to open a door for themselves, and will rather follow the pack. Both metaphorically, and literally. It's a sub-concious thing, but some people have the initiative, and most people don't.


----------



## Infanteer

Mark C,
Welcome back sir, look forward to seeing some more posts from you.

Two Points:

1)   I will admit now that some of the criticism's of my proposal from RCA, Michael O'Leary, and Mark C that I have changed my viewpoint.   I can see that having a variety of entrance means is desirable to bring in a variety of people.   As well, as Michael has stated, no entrance program has a monopoly on the upper end of the bell curve.   I see that how we choose to train and manage the careers of our Officers in peacetime is higher on the priority scale then making all serve time in the ranks.

2) I can also see that the education issue is as contentious as the "time in ranks" one (which I wouldn't have thought).   I maintain my position as a _proper_ education is an essential foundation to the strength of the Military Profession.


----------



## pbi

Mark C: Thanks for your answer. I am not so sure that you and I are as far apart on this issue as you may think. However, a couple of specific points:

"_It may be a "nice to have", but the ability to perform in an institution of higher learning is not a quantifiable measure nor an indicator of performance in the commissioned ranks_."


I agree, as far as the statement goes, but that wasn't really what I was trying to say(maybe I didn't learn those skills after all...). Remember, my OCTP peers and I thought we were pretty damned good and dedicated before the goalposts moved. What I mean to say is that the skills imparted in the pursuit of higher education are vital to those officers who progress beyond company level duty, patricularly those whose work affects and influences all of us, such as staff officers and commanders at higher HQs. I cannot understand how they could not be vital. I am willing to accept that individuals may develop these skills on their own (for example, I enjoyed reading military history long before I ever went to Quantico...) but I doubt that most would ever develop them in as timely and comprehensive a manner as PSE does. I will agree with you 100% that just having good marks from university does not make a good officer: as an OCTP and former WO I watched various DEO clowns with disgust as they blundered through phase training. Now, I usualy swallowed my feelings and tried to help them, but I bitterly resented the idea that anybody would assume they were better just because they had letters after their names

"_Yes, the dinosaurs will eventually die off, but I have no doubt that there was great value in having a mix of officer enrollment programs.  OCTP, DEO, ROTP - they all had their place within the enrollment "melange", and all contributed something to the overall mix_. "

Agreed, and I see absolutely no reason to do away with any of these programs, for the very reason you state. The US Army, for example, gets only about 25% of its officers from West Point. The rest come from civilian universities (ROTC) or are commissioned from the ranks ("Mustangs"). The first two groups already have degrees on arrival. The third group is not left out: the Army educates them to the same level. Thus the playing field is levelled. This is what I believe we should do, as well. Could we afford to put every non-degreed officer through PSE? Maybe, maybe not. Depends how we tackled it. What we certainly could do is identify those who have the proven performance and the strong potential to be worth the investment, then "git'em some larnin'"

"_we are simply promoting the ongoing exodus of talent as serving members opt to get out of a profession where the goal-posts are ever-shifting_."

OK-now here we differ, big time. Show me one profession worthy of the name which is able to resist change, and which does not have to move its goalposts, change its demands, or alter its procedures, to stay up with the world it must serve. Certainly not the military. We change course content, we change TTPs, we change organization and doctrine. We study other armies and learn from them (or we're supposed to, anyway...). We change the way we develop officers and NCOs. (And we screw things up, sometimes, too)  If we stand still we will be history before we know it. I believe that if we pursue the PSE goal properly, we would not produce the result you warn against: quite the opposite. We would improve the calibre and skill sets of the people we have. Using PSE as a means to drive people out, as I originally perceived it to be, is wrong and wasteful. 

We cannot turn the Army into a "free degree" club, but we can't allow it to miss out on the valuable skills that PSE brings, either. Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I would like to think that higher education is a lens, one which focuses innate abilities for thought, reasoning, and expression. The lens of PSE helps the individual recognize and develop those capabilities, perhaps accelerating what they would likely accomplish on their own within a supportive learning environment. Without the lens those attributes still exist, but may take longer to manifest themselves, or simply never have cause to do so if the spark of encouragement or desire never occurs. And like any optical lens, if the 'source' isn't bright enough to start with, the lens will have little effect against the background. 

As has been stated, some officers got caught out when the goalposts moved. While the potential benefits of PSE are recognized (I say potential because some never live up to the touted benefits of higher education anyway), no attempt has been made to allow the identification of those attributes in individuals with or without PSE. One is taken to presume the other, and it hardly needs reiteration to state that education doesn't necessarily equal intelligence.

Some corps have had a very hard time accepting the shift to a degreed officer corps. At times officers with advanced degrees in technical areas were banished to technical postings, never to be seen in a command appointment again. Others were warned at times that they were in danger of being branded â Å“an intellectual,â ? the inference being that it was a career-ending pronouncement. It's just too complicated a world to be picking leaders based solely on a snake-eating and arm-wrestling scale, it's early days for this change and the pendulum is still swinging.

The current approach is one solution to the bigger problem of ensuring a credible officer corps ready to produce the thinkers it needs at all levels. Is it a perfect solution; probably not, but the alternatives also have risks and management problems, in both bureaucratic and institutional senses.


----------



## Pte. Belley

Hi,

I've recently completed my BMQ as an NCM in the Reserves. (Infantry in the Royal Montreal Regiment.) Anyways, I've changed my mind about being an NCM and would like to a Reserve Officer. How easy/hard will this be to do? There are currently some Officer posts available at my unit according to the 34e Brigade website. Assuming my unit really has these posts opened, is it possible to switch to an Officer in the same trade? What do I need to do? Any recommendations?

Furthermore, does anyone know exactly how many weekends a month the SQ lasts? During the winter I am leaving for a humanitarian project for two weeks in the middle of January, would it still be possible to complete my SQ or is winter time really loaded? If I cannot do my SQ during winter, do I lose my financial benefits for education? (The 50% refund of school fees.)

Thanks!


----------



## Da_man

hey i finished my BMQ in Laval on the 12th for the RMR too...


----------



## Pte. Belley

Cool me too.

Belley here. Who's this? 

Glad I didn't go to concentration.


----------



## Da_man

Pte Gagnon.  Glad i didnt go to concentration either... I dont think "general duties" are much fun.


----------



## Sundborg

Fearan said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I've recently completed my BMQ as an NCM in the Reserves. (Infantry in the Royal Montreal Regiment.) Anyways, I've changed my mind about being an NCM and would like to a Reserve Officer. How easy/hard will this be to do? There are currently some Officer posts available at my unit according to the 34e Brigade website. Assuming my unit really has these posts opened, is it possible to switch to an Officer in the same trade? What do I need to do? Any recommendations?
> 
> Furthermore, does anyone know exactly how many weekends a month the SQ lasts? During the winter I am leaving for a humanitarian project for two weeks in the middle of January, would it still be possible to complete my SQ or is winter time really loaded? If I cannot do my SQ during winter, do I lose my financial benefits for education? (The 50% refund of school fees.)
> 
> Thanks!



It may be best to ask your question about your SQ course to other NCM's or officers at your unit.  But for the reserves, in order to be an officer, I'm pretty sure you must already have a degree or in the process of getting one.


----------



## Infanteer

Best to go through your Chain-of-Command, as I am sure they are best suited to deal with all your specific questions.


----------



## humint

OK, to be an officer, you need the following: 

1. Either completed or 
2. in process of completing a university degree or college diploma. 

NOTE: There are officers without degrees/diplomas, but they've been asked to CFR (commission from the ranks) because of time-in and experience.

So, if you qualify, here's what you do:

1. Go up the chain of cmd, starting with your sct cmdr -- who will then likely pass you to the Plt Cmdr, and then the Company 2IC and then Company OC, etc.

2. You will have to write a memo starting your desire to commission and why you qualify

3. Seek assistance from your unit rcrtng offr on the process

You will have to go through a series of interviews, including an offr board. 

Also, don't worry about SQ. If you commission as an offr, they will waive the BOTP course, and you will start at the a 1-week leadership course and then do CAP-R and then Phase III. These courses are normally offered during the summer at Gagetown.

Check out the www.sentex.net/argylls for more info on offr positions and the recruitment process.


----------



## Yard Ape

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Food for thought; you take a 20 year old corporal and give him some leadership training... are you going to throw him in the Pl WO position right away? No, first he's 2IC of a section, hopefully under an experienced MCpl or Sgt, let him teach a basic course as a 2IC, give him a year or two of experience and after a year or two, eventually he gets command of a section.
> 
> Now, take the same 20 year old and give him a degree. He (in theory) completes his phase training in under a year and is a 2Lt. What do we do to him? Make him a Platoon Commander. No 2IC position, no one to mentor under, and he's going to make all his mistakes in full view of the Platoon. He's still trying to figure out the soldiering business, let alone being a leader and a commander and will, understandably be still trying to find his feet. Would you make a new private with a year in a section commander? Then why would you make a new officer with a year in a Platoon Commander?


You would not give the 20 yr old Pte a Sr NCO with 20 yrs experience as his coach either (but that is what a 23 yr old Pl Comd gets in his Pl WO).


----------



## combat_medic

But the Pl Comd is in a senior position to the Pl WO, and is 'supposed' to be the one making the decisions. While he may ask advice from the Pl WO, he is the one in command, and that puts him in an unusual position. He is commanding a large number of troops, the majority of whom will have more TI than himself. He is under no requirement to take advice, or to agree with the Pl WO, and he gets the final word. If he's smart, he'll listen to those with more experience, but he could equally choose to be stubborn and get his platoon lost bush whacking for a day or two rather than admitting he's lost and can't read a map.

If you put him in a formalized position with someone senior to himself, where he's REQUIRED to take the advice he's given, and isn't immediately given a command he's not prepared for, it could solve a lot of these problems.


----------



## zerhash

officer is a good job if youre into admin

you will go through royal military college and have a well rounded education

id still recomend going through the ranks just because u learn more and see what the engineers are all about

you can start when you are 16 in the reserves. it lets you see what the army is about and lets you study while in the army.


----------



## Yard Ape

That arrangement forces the officer to think & prepairs him for the responsibility of higher command.  Even the UTPNCM Cpl would, after commissioning, still be less experienced than the WO.  The Pl Comd also has someone senior that he has to listen to (we call that guy the OC).  If the Pl Comd does not listen to his WO & does step on himself, then he will have to answer to the OC.  If a Pl Comd cannot learn to take the advise of his Sr NCOs, then he will fail as an officer.  Every officer in a command job has a Sr NCO to advise him.

. . . and what better time to instill an appreciation for the advise of the experienced then when the Pl Comd really has none of his own.


----------



## AndrewWGrieve

A brief note on the issue of the Platoon Commander, rather than the Platoon Warrant, commanding a Platoon.  A Pl WO, in, for example, the infantry, has been in the infantry for 20 years and has learned exactly how things should be done in a Platoon.  At times, this may lead to inflexibility in method.  The young 2Lt (myself) has never had a command before, and therefore is extremely flexible in his methods and thinking.  There are times when the old method is not necessarily the right method.  
There are times when I have disagreed with my senior NCO and been absolutely wrong to have done so.  I admitted I was wrong and moved on.  There are times when I have disagreed with my senior NCO and done what I felt was right and been extremely successful.  There have been times where if I had merely followed the advice of my senior NCO instead of thought through the situation for myself and made a decision, the Platoon would have collapsed, or people would have been charged unnecessarily.  Decision making is not always about experience, because every environment changes continuously and you must adapt to the situation.  
My own Commanding Officer has mentioned that the ideas of his junior officers are at times far more innovative than his method of solving a problem.  When he was a young junior officer, his innovative ideas often surprised his own commanders.
Being an officer is a combination of problem solving and leadership, and neither problem solving nor leadership rely completely on experience.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The WO does not command the troop or platoon, except in the absense of the officer.  He is there to guide, to provide advice, and perhaps most importandly, to be the buffer in between the men and the officer.  The WO certainly tries to mold the young gentleman, not because the officer cannot think for himself, but the new officer does not have the experience, either in warfighting, or in leadership.

When the platoon/troop officer and the WO "click", you end up with a good subunit.  The opposite of course, also happens.  Occasionally, along comes a sword winner, who honestly thinks he knows better than the Snr NCO's in his outfit.  And can't figure out why his outfit isn't doing as good as other ones.

A good WO can make his officer look good, or bad.  Fortunately, the "Rommels" are few, and are normally quickly brought back crashing to earth.


----------



## pbi

I agree fully with sentiments in these last three posts. While the officer, in the end, must make the decision and wear the results (no NCO likes an officer who can't or won't make a decision) in my opinion/experience the organization runs best when the officer and his WOs/Senior NCOs work on mutual respect and trust. If your crew knows why you did something, and what the underlying reasons are, they'll work alot better. If you treat them like mushrooms, you'll get mushrooms. Just ask yoursellf how you would want to be treated, and then do that. An officer (at any rank or appointment...) who refuses to seek the advice of his WOs/NCOs is not only risking failure, he is also making life hard for himself and undermining the entire way our system is designed to work. We have WOs/NCOs for a reason. However, the officer (especially the young 2Lt) cannot shirk his own responsibility onto his WOs/NCOs, no matter what advice they gave him. He is there to command. My advice to any new officer arriving in a unit is to make sure you establish a good (not buddy/buddy...just good) relationship with your CSM/BSM/SSM and your RSM. It will pay off, believe me. They have lots to teach you. When I first arrived at a battalion, in 1983, we were required to make an office call on the RSM. I didn't regret it.  Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I think the important point, made earlier, is that whether in the NCM stream or early in the commissioned-from-civilian stream, the prospective officer will have a chance to endure the sort of trivialities and stupidities and hardships that we would want to leave an impression.  The good leader will remember and make decisions which avoid those sorts of trickle-down effects and the poor leader will not.  All that matters is to spend some time bearing the brunt of apparently poor preparation, thoughtless busywork, etc.

The education policy makes sense.  We don't know which among each year's newly minted 2Lts has the potential to really grasp operations and strategy at the formation and combined/joint level so we should ensure all are equally prepared in the skill of learning.  The payoff is not slightly better regimental officers.  The payoff is officers who are better-prepared for a demanding staff/war college experience.


----------



## Bartok5

"The education policy makes sense.   We don't know which among each year's newly minted 2Lts has the potential to really grasp operations and strategy at the formation and combined/joint level so we should ensure all are equally prepared in the skill of learning.   The payoff is not slightly better regimental officers.   The payoff is officers who are better-prepared for a demanding staff/war college experience."

The above is all fine and well.... Until by virtue of a "goal-post" fixated entry-qualification regimen, you end up excluding potential officers who possess (or would have possessed) the requisite intellectual abilities to perform those "higher level" functions by singular virtue of their non-post-secondary "life experience" or long-term military service.

This is where the entire "post-secondary education" band-wagon really makes me shake my head.   There seems to be a blind expectation that any officer who can fumble through a university degree is somehow already better suited to real-world leadership, problem solving, innate (or studied) appreciation for the lessons of military history, due consideration for "higher concerns", application of tactical and leadership "common sense", analytical consideration of an immediate or long-term situation, etc, etc.   I for one, call utter bullcrap.

I have had the distinct misfortune of enduring far more university-degreed subordinates (eg. Platoon Commanders) who couldn't form simple sentences in the English language than was the reverse.   I have also noted that there is zero correlation between a university degree and the ability to LEAD soldiers during training and operations.   I have said it before, and I will say it again.   A university degree in no way indicates an officer's ability to inspire subordinates, much less apply common sense to typical tactical AND OPERATIONAL problems at ANY LEVEL.   All of which leads me to openly question the veracity of any argument purporting the desirability of academic performance vis-a-vis pure performance and assessed potential as a commissioned military leader.   

Sorry, but my admittedly brief 23.5 years of Infantry service STRONGLY suggests that there is ZERO correlation between post-secondary education and leadership potential/capability.   And I quite deliberately include wiithin the above, the ability to progress (and perform beyond "par") at the post-command levels.   I maintain that the PSE yard-stick for commissioned service is a "red herring".   Every bit as valid as the archaic European ideal that one need be "born into a position of nobility" in order to lead.   That is utter tripe, perpetuated by academics with limited military experience (eg.   Granatstein) who have little to zero understanding of what it means to truly understand, connect with, and lead soldiers on combat operations.

All things being equal, higher education (and the desire to pursue it) is a desirable trait. I will be the first to admit that, nothwithstanding my own experience suggesting that it is NOT an indicator nor enabler of potential aptitude and/or ability.   But when such a meaningless "measuring stick" becomes the institutional criteria by which prospective and serviing officers are judged for enrollment or future progression?   In deliberate contradiction to their performance evaluations which state that they are eminently suitable for unit command and higher?   Well, then we have a fundamental disconnect where "what we know" (eg. performance-based fact) contradicts "what we we would like to believe" (eg. academic supposition).   And therein lies the resigned acceptance of those who were marginalized half-way through their careers and have elected to become the CLS's worst nightmare by pulling the pin at 20 years.   So long, thanks for all the fish....

I am not bitter, but I am a realist.   I understand the terms of service that I joined under have changed in the interim, and I appreciate the fact that I could have bent over backwards and sacrificed my family to adapt to those changes.   From a personal perspective, I wasn't willing to make those sacrifices, and I have zero regrets after the fact.   I therefore have no qualms whatsoever about where I am in the Army, and what I intend to do when I reach the end of my current contract in 2006.   It has been a good run, and I am not the least bit bitter, despite what my concerns about "education as a prerequisite for commissioned leadership" might suggest.   I am admittedly disillusioined about the direction that the Canadian Army is headed in terms of combat capability, but is another story entirely.   I have no regrets career-wise, nor do I feel "hard done by".   The rules changed, and I refused to follow them.   My choice, my results.   

At the same time, anyone who tries to tell me that a university degree serves as a viable "threshhold" for commissioned service is (in my personal view) seriously misdirected.   By instituting such "academic benchmarks", we achieve nothing of qualitative substance.   Idiots with English degrees who can't form simple sentences in the English language become officers.   "Uneducated" citizens with 5 years of honest work and innate labour-related leadership are relegated to the ranks.   Who loses in the long haul?   The answer is, everyone.....

Just some random thoughts....   And no, I don't feel a bit "sorry" for myself.   I am quite happy where I am, thank-you very much.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

A very insightful post, Mark C.  

Our system contrasts sharply with several other nations policies, where the soldier has to prove himself before time, money and scarce resources are spent giving someone a degree.

There are far too many expensive failures in our Forces, with the result of the seemingly thousands of PAFFO's and Education Officers wandering around bases everywhere.  After so much money was spent educating them, and training them, only for them to fail training in their chosen trade.  Some have even admitted to failing on purpose, having discovered that being a soldier isn't "fun" after all.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.


----------



## pbi

I am not so sure about Mark C's comments, although I certainly expressed all of them myself at the time that we initially adopted the concept of am all-degreed officer corps. I also (as did many of my non-degreed Cbt A peers at the time) expressed that it was unfair and unrealistic to attempt to draw a correlation between having PSE and being a better leader.

While, on refllection, I would have to agree today that such a correlation is probably false, I think the issue is much too narrowly drawn. While the basic quality and value of a Cbt A officer is his ability to lead, the Army (and indeed the joint service operations beyond the purely Army domain) demand that an officer be able to function in environments in which the style of leadership and thought processes of value in a rifle company have limited value. In particular, the success of any operation bigger than a battle group attack is the product of staff work at various headquarters. Behind that staff work is conceptual thinking, research and brainstorming that is best done by minds trained to thhink more broadly and more deeply, to consider all factors more objectively, and to analyze options more conscientiously than is usually the case at sub-unit level where raw "boots and bayonets" leadership is effective and vital.

While there are without doubt officers possessed of these mental capcacities without benefit of PSE, I believe most strongly that PSE (and indeed PME such as a good staff college) will greatly help to develop these traits. In my own view, an education  with emphasis on humanities, political studies, etc provides the best broad background for the officer who will progress beyond company level.

I do not mean to say that all good officers have degrees, nor that all degreed officers are good. These two positions are clearly wrong. However, I believe that without reservation the mental development required to complete PSE will strengthen an officers' thought processes and give them a broader and more flexible mind. For example, I look at the staff officers here in CJTF76: they are covering a huge waterfront from planning warfighting ops against the enemy along the Pakistan frontier to separating warring local warlords in the western provinces to doing nationbuilding all over the place. There is no place for the narrow, inflexible mind. What is needed here, and what I see at work, are officers whose minds are a joint product of experience (in a number of cases combat experience) and PSE. So far, it seems to work pretty well.

We older officers are still uncomfortable with this idea of a degreed corps, but I for one say we should accept it, a long as PSE forms a part of a balanced process of leadership development, PME, and experience. Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If educational qualifications are merely being employed as gatekeepers, that's unfortunate.  My point is that an officer who has the potential to be a brilliant multinational formation commander in a complex "three block war", or CLS, or CDS, shouldn't top out as a brilliant battle group commander because he didn't have the same preparatory educational advantages as his peers at the start of a particular development period.  If you believe high school education (standardized) + military career path (which may vary considerably) is sufficient, fair enough.

Education should be preparation, not qualification, for subsequent achievement.  To keep the playing field level, everyone should be compelled (and provided opportunity) to obtain that education, so that ultimately everyone is able to achieve their highest potential.


----------



## pbi

Agreed. You said it better than I did. Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace

Very well put Brad.

Some of this country's (and other nations as well) greatest "Captains of Industry" et al did not have much in the way of education.  Some of our finest RSMs and Snr NCO's (quite a few years back, now) are reputed to have had Grade 3 or less.  Those days are gone, and with our current education system those examples would be very rare today, but having an education does not equate to having sound leadership skills or qualities.  

Education certification and Language ability are a couple of requirements that are disenfranchising a lot of talented people.  PC attitudes like these are actually slowing our advancement.  

GW


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Does anyone who is championing the degreed-officer idea really know what goes into a degree?

I have two BAs, and honestly, they could bring them up with the rations these days, at least the ones I got at the U of C were relatively valueless with the exception of that little piece of paper you get, which means UPS et al is more likely to hire you since it presumably means something.

But it doesn't.  I skated through 7 years of University barely having cracked a book - in many cases without even buying the text books.  I sucked at math and didn't like doing complex problems, so I took courses where I didn't have to think too much.  It was three years before I knew what a "thesis" was.  I studied for exams on the day of the exam, on the bus going to school.   I got As in some clases, rarely less than a C+ in the rest - I believe two classes in those seven years, both of them math classes which I didn't realize there was no requirement for me to take.

As a somewhat conservative, and at that time shy, person, I made no friends in University.   I went for a beer once with a classmate, mostly because he was ex PPCLI and a cute blonde I went to high school with had asked both of us to sit down with her.  The rest of the 14,000 people there I had little time or respect for as it struck me as a bastion of deeply liberal thought, and I didn't have the time or inclination to sort the wheat from the chaff.  I made my friends in the Militia, into which I enrolled the month after I started University.

I learned nothing about citizenship, much less how to lead soldiers.  Looking back at the notes and papers I kept, the only skill I truly developed was how to write a precis of six textbooks I signed out of the library for the means of doing a paper.  That's it.

University education is about paying lots of money to the universities, so the tenured professors can afford to do research.  The focus isn't on education, citizen-making, or really in any way dedicated to learning.  At least not in the social sciences - engineering, medical and law students are more connected to the "real world", but anyone with a degree in psychology or philosophy or English, or, like me, in history or communications studies, really hasn't been prepared for a damn thing - and will not have been prepared to be an "officer"  in any sense of the word.  Two years in the ranks of a militia unit would be far better preparation for a potential officer.

My experience may be atypical - maybe other universities or colleges do more to actually educate students, maybe I was just lackadaisacal and didn't demand better (if it was available to me).  But the point being there is no guarantee that a University education will do a single thing to prepare anyone to be an officer.

To me, the idea that PSE is in any way beneficial to a potential officer is ludicrous.


----------



## Infanteer

On an individual, case-by-case basis, a Post-Secondary Education may seem useless, but on the whole, I think it will do much to raise the level of professional thought within the Officer Corps, but only if the education is directed towards the Profession of Arms.  Having a fully degreed Officer Corps with English Literature degrees is, as Michael pointed out, frivolous and does nothing to further professional growth.  If the members of the Officer Corps are indeed members of a professional body as I understand it, then a professional education is required.

Using the University setting is convenient place to start, as it is the conventional structure of post-secondary learning, but we must ensure that what is taught and studied is pertinent to the growth of military professionalism.  From what I understand, RMC has failed to do this so far, only billing itself as a glorified cross between Cadet Camp and a normal University.  I am sure if you asked a group of Doctors or Lawyers what they felt an aspiring member of the profession should learn in their schooling, you'd get a good answer so why can't we do the same here. 

If we are to require a professional (ie military) education by all officers of the military, what sort of curriculum should this education be built around in order to ensure maximum professional growth among members of the profession?

I have my own ideas, but I'm pressed for time right now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm just going to swerve for a second as something I read the other day in a thread stuck in my mind.
I wish I could remember what thread it was but someone wrote the comment that are are lots of Ocdt's running around doing poop jobs while awaiting their training.IE CFRC, etc.
Why not, instead of this, put them in a unit as a private and let them spend that wasted time learning the NCM side?
Surely all that education won't dissapate by doing a layman's job for awhile and hopefully some insight will be gained.
Is there regulations against this kind of idea?


----------



## Infanteer

Bruce, that could work.   I think the real answer is a more effective way of organizing how officers are brought in; with a variety of different methods, a system of limited resources can only deal with a few pipelines (I think we have chosen to build around the RMC schedule).

As for the idea of a military education here are a few of my thoughts on what should be in the curriculum for Officer Candidates in the Army (The Navy and the Air Force will have different requirements due to the fundamental nature of what these officers do).

1. Leadership:   Courses in Leadership should go beyond the basic "Principles of Leadership" that are constantly expounded on (these core values are kind of no brainers anyways).   Courses in the leadership field should also be based on Psychological frameworks (The physiology and behaviour of soldiers in battle, the mental effects of military operations, the effects of battlefield stimuli upon a leaders troops; ie PTSD) Sociological frameworks (Small unit cohesion and bonding, vertical and horizontal relationships of soldiers within the group, the military culture in general) and Management frameworks (Adminstration of your units and soldiers, etc)

2. Introduction to Tactics and Operations:   This group of courses should serve as an introduction to the bread and butter of a Professional Officer's career, winning battles for victory in wars with the endstate of preparing an Cadet mentally to successfully approach his technical training on commanding the basic group of his chosen trade (Ie: Platoon commanders course, etc).   Rather then begin with bombarding Officer Cadets with a host of technical terms and formulaic schema (which I think are wrong anyways, but that's another topic for debate), students of all branches of the Army will be first taught the doctrine of our Land Forces and be given basic conceptual lessons on a "two level up" principle.   Students will start learning about battalion level operations and tactics at a conceptual level.   Once they begin to see the combined arms approach that battalion commanders must make, then more complicated methods can be taught as the lesson progresses down to the platoon and how it fights within the commanders intent.

3. Military History:   This is essential to know who we are; the profession of arms is built upon the edifice of all that has come before us.   However, it should be remembered that we are trying to produce Professional Military Officers here, not Military Historians.   Simply teaching Cadets who, whats, and wheres of major historical conflict is useless.   The effort should be made at teaching the Cadets to understand the thought processes that were involved in victory and defeat.   

The main form of teaching this will be through the use of historic case studies; during the course the Cadets will constantly be challenged to evaluate the situation faced by historic commanders and ask themselves "what options does he have", "what are the limitations and contigencies that this commander face", and "why did he make the decision he made".   I remember PBI explaining how he and his coursemates in Quantico were reading Thucydides; they were not reading it to learn that Athens declared war on Syracuse on Sicily or that Nicias was the commander of the Athenian contingent, but rather to understand, through a historical casestudy, the idea of a hegemonic power (Athens) launching a questionable offensive in another theater in order to gain a strategic advantage against its Spartan enemy.   Thucydides Peloponnesian War  is chalk full of useful lessons like this, that is why we still read it after 2,500 years.   It is this kind of approach that allows to truly apply the empirical lessons of history and how to apply them to the military profession.

4. Military Law:   Our unique military society is in part defined by our unique codes of discipline and administration that we live under.   Professional Officers must understand these laws and regulations and how they serve both the Army and the society it protects.   Lessons should look at the history and evolution of military law and its effect on the military culture as a whole.

5. Government and Society:   Professional military officers must understand that their basic obligation as a professional is to master competence of the management of violence on behalf of the state.   With that in mind, the obligations of an Officer towards the state and the population he serves must be reinforced.   Topics such as civics, civil-military relations, The DND and NDHQ, and the role of the Military in Canada should be included to ensure that the Cadet has a clear picture of the profession he is undertaking.

6. Languages:   French is required of our Officers, so naturally it could be included here.   But this does not eliminate the opportunity for other Languages to be taught.   Learning a variety of different languages will allow the Officer Corps as a whole to get a clearer "window" into the workings of other cultures.   This is an essential ability when aimed towards a form of professional development, as a multi-fluent Officer Corps can understand the cultural, military, and contemporary texts that help to drive and define the actions taken by both our potential allies and our enemies. 

7. Other Topics:   It is important to offer other topics, potentially the ability to minor in, for Cadets to study, as the interdisciplinary nature of the Military Science or Art draws from all aspects of human society.   As an example, Dr. Jonathan Shay has written two excellent books on the psychological effects of soldiers through a combination of his work with Vietnam Veterans suffering from PTSD and by using material from the Classical Greek epics of the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ (They are Achilles in Vietnam and Odysseus in America; I highly recommend them both to any soldier).   Obviously, a Cadet can pursue interests in History, Literature, Economics, etc, etc to broaden his horizons.

All these fit well under the conventional undergraduate career, however, they are specially directed towards building a professional military officer.   Many of these topics will be covered under a PO check withing courses throughout the Phase Training of Military Officers, but I think it is vital to teach them in a rigerous academic setting in order to allow Cadets to contemplate on what they are learning and to provide research and written work to further develop their understanding of the issues.   We must teach our Officers on how to think about all the important issues that they will deal with, not simply provide them with a "Technical Course" approach of filling the toilet with a gamut of information, checking the box once they pass a simple test, and flushing it down the drain for the next load of information; how does this set up our officers to critically think and understand issues that are related to the military profession?

Many of these courses will involve work outside of the conventional classroom setting using TEWT's, officer "tours", and visiting other places relevent to the course of study.   Of course, these courses apply mainly to Officers who will be involved in the Combat Arms and the Combat Support Branches; those in more technical branches, after being given the basic fundamentals of what their Commission requires, can be transferred into a relevent specialist program (perhaps at a civilian university if required).   As well, there should be a structure in place to give those who come into the program with a undergraduate degree an accelerated start, so as utilize the education they already have worked towards.

Does anyone feel this is the wrong approach to training professionals or that I've missed something?   Interested on the replys.

Cheers,
Infanteer.


----------



## pbi

Infanteer: I am with you on your latest post. I particularly agree with your emphasis on developing mental capabilities and skill sets vice the good old Army practice of stuffing the brain like a Christmas turkey full of useless factoids that will  be forgotten five minutes after the exam is written. I don't think you have missed anything. Cheers.


----------



## pbi

Michael Dorosh's observation that university benefitted him little or nothing at all does not affect my position in any way. I already stated that it is quite clear that not all degreed officers are good. Likewise not all degreed lawyers, doctors, architects,philosophers priests or diplomats are good. Yet, no-one would seriously suggest that any of those professions would abandon post-secondary education requirements.   Nor, would any right-minded person expect to be able to demand admission to those professions without it. 

As Michael points out, one can go through university (not once, apparently, but twice...) and not benefit in any significant manner. I suppose, then, that it is equally true that one could go through any number of potentially enriching life experiences and just miss the point of the whole thing. That certainly _would_ be a waste of time and money, but I have to say that what matters is not really what university makes of you, but what you choose to make of university. University is a provider of tools and opportunities. Some will go through it and go on to do great things. Some will go through it and go on to work in the car wash. Depends on what you want to do with it.

I remain steadfast in my belief that education is always preferable to ignorance, and that while you will never learn in university how to launch a combat team attack, that is simply too narrow a criteria to use as a means to dismiss the university requirement as frivolous, unfair, or "PC". What we need is an approach that facilitates serving officers getting degrees, educating soldiers selected for commissioning, and encouraging the entry of degreed applicants. There is no inherent need in any of this to downplay the value of leadership nor of the human traits that make us good soldiers and good officers, any more than one could discount the traits that make people good surgeons, diplomats or religious leaders. All are parts of the whole. We have just gone on so long in our old comfortable rut that we think (like we always do) that that's the way it's supposed to be. It isn't. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

pbi said:
			
		

> Michael Dorosh's observation that university benefitted him little or nothing at all does not affect my position in any way. I already stated that it is quite clear that not all degreed officers are good. Likewise not all degreed lawyers, doctors, architects,philosophers priests or diplomats are good. Yet, no-one would seriously suggest that any of those professions would abandon post-secondary education requirements.  Nor, would any right-minded person expect to be able to demand admission to those professions without it.
> 
> As Michael points out, one can go through university (not once, apparently, but twice...) and not benefit in any significant manner. I suppose, then, that it is equally true that one could go through any number of potentially enriching life experiences and just miss the point of the whole thing. That certainly _would_ be a waste of time and money, but I have to say that what matters is not really what university makes of you, but what you choose to make of university. University is a provider of tools and opportunities. Some will go through it and go on to do great things. Some will go through it and go on to work in the car wash. Depends on what you want to do with it.
> 
> I remain steadfast in my belief that education is always preferable to ignorance, and that while you will never learn in university how to launch a combat team attack, that is simply too narrow a criteria to use as a means to dismiss the university requirement as frivolous, unfair, or "PC". What we need is an approach that facilitates serving officers getting degrees, educating soldiers selected for commissioning, and encouraging the entry of degreed applicants. There is no inherent need in any of this to downplay the value of leadership nor of the human traits that make us good soldiers and good officers, any more than one could discount the traits that make people good surgeons, diplomats or religious leaders. All are parts of the whole. We have just gone on so long in our old comfortable rut that we think (like we always do) that that's the way it's supposed to be. It isn't. Cheers.



University, by its nature, offers no benefits to the potential military officer that can't be found elsewhere.  Encourage post secondary education, sure.  Demand it?  You're just limiting yourself, since you also admit that university will mean different things to different people.  You also admit university will not teach anything about the nuts and bolts of the military profession to the potential officer.

Infanteer's proposal makes sense - requiring a performing arts degree in order to be a shop manager in a service battalion is pretty much out to lunch.  

You've done nothing but speak in vague generalities, perhaps if you gave an example of some of these "tools and opportunities" university is supposed to "provide" you might make a stronger case, but frankly, you speak as if you've never set foot in one but rather read about one on the internet at some point, or perhaps are on the board of governors of one in financial trouble.

I do like the old General Staff system, and perhaps we need to return to that.  Sort of a two-tiered officer structure?

 The German officer candidate in the first part of the 20th Century (and maybe post WW II, I don't know) served in a field unit as an Officer Aspirrant, as a junior NCM, then as a junior NCO, a senior NCO and finally passed out as an officer.   In our system, they may or may not serve as NCMs without aspirant status, and once they signal their intention to become an officer, the Officer Cadet is plucked from the ranks and given over to the officers.  He has no commissioned status, but he has all the priveleges of the officers and does little or no work with the "men" nor does he have supervisory status from what I can tell.  I would suggest a change to the German system, where he works with the men for a year or two, gaining in supervisory experience and status along the way - make an officer cadet have three grades - equal to a private, to a Master Corporal, and to a Warrant Officer, so he can experience small party leadership in a "real" setting.

Then the second class - the General Staff class.  The professional officer, for whom a post-secondary education is required, preferably along the lines of Infanteer's model.   Stick with the current Officer Cadet status for him, have him concentrate on operations, planning, logistics, history, etc.  Mold him to be a high level commander, or senior staff officer.  He's the one who "needs" university, not a junior troop leader.


----------



## pbi

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> _University, by its nature, offers no benefits to the potential military officer that can't be found elsewhere.   Encourage post secondary education, sure.   Demand it?   You're just limiting yourself, since you also admit that university will mean different things to different people. _



I fail to understand how education could be limiting. This is a contradiction in terms, in my opinion. I do agree that some of the benefits of post secondary education can be gained elsewhere, but nowhere in so compact and focused a manner except possibly a very good staff college, which I could accept but for the fact that the education delivered at staff college tends to be somewhat narrow.



> _You also admit university will not teach anything about the nuts and bolts of the military profession to the potential officer_.



Yes, I did: I've said that twice now. However I've also said that that is not the point of obtaining a degree, per se. The only cases in which the"nuts and bolts" are directly transferable from PSE are those of officers in technical specialties. In my opinion the combat arms officer (who forms the backbone of the command and staff structure of any Army) gains from the second order effects of PSE, which I have described previously.



> _Infanteer's proposal makes sense - requiring a performing arts degree in order to be a shop manager in a service battalion is pretty much out to lunch._


   

Yes, of course it is. That really isn't the point, either.



> _You've done nothing but speak in vague generalities, perhaps if you gave an example of some of these "tools and opportunities" university is supposed to "provide" you might make a stronger case, but frankly, you speak as if you've never set foot in one but rather read about one on the internet at some point, or perhaps are on the board of governors of one in financial trouble_.



My goodness-that was rather stiff, wasn't it? I've already explained elsewhere what I believe the benefits are: they are preciesly those broad attributes that you dismiss as "vague generalities". In my mind, they are the most valuable (although not the only) things that PSE can bestow, and IMHO they are developed most effectively by an arts or humanities-centred education, although I certainly am not dismissing the hard sciences.   I hold a BA in Political Studies and Psychology, and I have completed the residency USMC Command and Staff College (97/98) which is certified as a post-graduate program in the US. I came to PSE quite late in life, getting my degree after 26 years of non- and -commissioned service.



> _I do like the old General Staff system, and perhaps we need to return to that.   Sort of a two-tiered officer structure?_



We never had this system in our Army. We have considered it, but have never adopted it.



> _The German officer candidate in the first part of the 20th Century (and maybe post WW II, I don't know) served in a field unit as an Officer Aspirrant, as a junior NCM, then as a junior NCO, a senior NCO and finally passed out as an officer. _



I wonder what reference you are basing this on. In fact, I think you will find that except in wartime, most early 20th century German officers were products of cadet academies like Lichterfelde.   I think you are referring to the _Offiziere Anwarter _ system that brought officer candidates through the ranks.  Before WWI, only a limited number of officers came from the ranks. In WWI, the pressure of officer casualties and the huge size of the Army required the Germans to commission men that they ordinarily would not have. During the post 1919 Weimar Republic, I believe that the Reichsheer NCO development process would have taken too long to produce officers to permit them to be cycled through the NCO ranks as you have suggested. In WWII, the Offiziere Anwarter system was used, as was mass commissioning of NCOs. 



> _In our system, they may or may not serve as NCMs without aspirant status, and once they signal their intention to become an officer, the Officer Cadet is plucked from the ranks and given over to the officers._



"Given over to the officers..." Blindfolded, kicking and screaming, no doubt.   A horrid fate! Actually, most of his initial training will be done by NCOs, who will continue to train him at least to company grade appointment.



> _He has no commissioned status, but he has all the priveleges of the officers_



Hmmm-I don't recall too many "priveliges"   as an Officer Candiate. In fact, I seem to recall looking back with fond regret on my lost status as an NCO.



> _and does little or no work with the "men" nor does he have supervisory status from what I can tell._



Nor should he, in my opinion, at that level of experience. (Hence my original suggestion about requiring officers to do time in the ranks)



> _I would suggest a change to the German system, where he works with the men for a year or two, gaining in supervisory experience and status along the way - make an officer cadet have three grades - equal to a private, to a Master Corporal, and to a Warrant Officer, so he can experience small party leadership in a "real" setting_.



As I said earlier, I don't think this is actually the "German system". I'll have to ask the German guys here.



> _Then the second class - the General Staff class.   The professional officer, for whom a post-secondary education is required, preferably along the lines of Infanteer's model.     Stick with the current Officer Cadet status for him, have him concentrate on operations, planning, logistics, history, etc.   Mold him to be a high level commander, or senior staff officer.   He's the one who "needs" university, not a junior troop leader._



I'm not sure what Army you believe you are modelling this on, but it certainly was not the German Army of either WW, or of today. Under the German system, officers moved between General Staff and troop command appointments for almost their entire careers. They still do it (I work with several German officers here in ISAF), and for the same reason we do: the professional health of the Army. Strictly dividing the command stream from the staff stream will result in troop leading being done by parochial ignoramuses, and staff work being done by cloistered, detached airheads who never had mud on their boots. Your closing comment reveals the narrow focus I spoke of: officers do not remain as "junior troop leaders": they move on to serve the Army in other, broader ways.If we offer PSE only to those groomed for higher office, we create two classes of officers again. The benefits of PSE apply to all officers, if only they will open their minds to accept that fact. Cheers.


----------



## pbi

OK: I was wrong on the officer system in the German Army today. Here is the answer my boss gave me:

"_A german officer gos through the ranks. He starts as a Gefreiter, then as
something comparable to an Unteroffizier, but if you will get an officer
they call it "Fahnenjunker" and then Faehnrich. After 3 yeras he will become
a second lieutenant (first officer rank). In his time as Fahnenjunker and
Faehnrich he is part of the NCO community in the different Bn or coys or
regiments. This is the normal way_."

My bad. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

pbi said:
			
		

> I fail to understand how education could be limiting. This is a contradiction in terms, in my opinion. I do agree that some of the benefits of post secondary education can be gained elsewhere, but nowhere in so compact and focused a manner except possibly a very good staff college, which I could accept but for the fact that the education delivered at staff college tends to be somewhat narrow.



Which ones?  Again, you speak in nothing but generalities.



> Yes, I did: I've said that twice now. However I've also said that that is not the point of obtaining a degree, per se. The only cases in which the"nuts and bolts" are directly transferable from PSE are those of officers in technical specialties. In my opinion the combat arms officer (who forms the backbone of the command and staff structure of any Army) gains from the second order effects of PSE, which I have described previously.



Can you repeat them here?  I don't recall seeing such a description.



> My goodness-that was rather stiff, wasn't it? I've already explained elsewhere what I believe the benefits are: they are preciesly those broad attributes that you dismiss as "vague generalities". In my mind, they are the most valuable (although not the only) things that PSE can bestow, and IMHO they are developed most effectively by an arts or humanities-centred education, although I certainly am not dismissing the hard sciences.  I hold a BA in Political Studies and Psychology, and I have completed the residency USMC Command and Staff College (97/98) which is certified as a post-graduate program in the US. I came to PSE quite late in life, getting my degree after 26 years of non- and -commissioned service.



Didn't intend to be harsh, but you still haven't explained these "broad attributes".  Call them vague generalities, broad attributes, or universityish stuff, I care little what label you apply, just tell us what you mean.  You haven't given a single tangible benefit to support your contention that PSE is essential for an officer.



> I wonder what reference you are basing this on. In fact, I think you will find that except in wartime, most early 20th century German officers were products of cadet academies like Lichterfelde.  I think you are referring to the Offiziere Anwarter system that brought officer candidates through the ranks. Before WWI, only a limited number of officers came from the ranks. In WWI, the pressure of officer casualties and the huge size of the Army required the Germans to commission men that they ordinarily would not have. During the post 1919 Weimar Republic, I believe that the Reichsheer NCO development process would have taken too long to produce officers to permit them to be cycled through the NCO ranks as you have suggested. In WWII, the Offiziere Anwarter system was used, as was mass commissioning of NCOs.



I see you've addressed this with your last post.  There is info on the German officer candidate system in WW II at my website at http://www.deutschesoldaten.com



> "Given over to the officers..." Blindfolded, kicking and screaming, no doubt.  A horrid fate! Actually, most of his initial training will be done by NCOs, who will continue to train him at least to company grade appointment.



Formal training as in courses, but when he is with his unit, he is relegated to the bottom of the pile of the officers list and given menial taskings, no?



> Hmmm-I don't recall too many "priveliges"  as an Officer Candiate. In fact, I seem to recall looking back with fond regret on my lost status as an NCO.



Well, I meant the little stuff like eating in the officers mess rather than with the junior ranks, attending mess functions - privileges not really the correct word.  



> As I said earlier, I don't think this is actually the "German system". I'll have to ask the German guys here.



I see you've addressed this earlier.



> I'm not sure what Army you believe you are modelling this on, but it certainly was not the German Army of either WW, or of today.



Wasn't modelling it on anything, just a proposal.



> .If we offer PSE only to those groomed for higher office, we create two classes of officers again. The benefits of PSE apply to all officers, if only they will open their minds to accept that fact. Cheers.



You still haven't mentioned what a single one of those benefits might be, and proven that it comes solely from post secondary education.  I am sure that the entire officer corps could agree that wearing pink underwear is beneficial and essential too, if (in your words) "they will (only) open their minds to accept that fact."

So now that you've concentrated on picking the historical flyshit from the pepper in my post, how about addressing the question - what benefits does the officer get from PSE and why are they essential to him?


----------



## pbi

Your correspondence is degenerating to an unfortunately rude tone. Perhaps I offended you with my suggestion that your sojourn in university was indeed wasted. Certainly I seem to have irritated you with my position which you characterize as vague. However, let me try to respond once more. If you choose not to read what I have said here or elsewhere, that is, I suppose, your matter.

To begin with, it is abundantly evident to me that we share a different view of the necessary attributes of officers. Yours seem to be quite restricted, and rather "unit-centric": a point of view that I suggest was typical of the Canadian Army until quite recently and traceable, I would argue, to our military cultural descent from the British. I do not quarrel with the need for solid leadership skills at the levels of battalion and below: I have spent 18 of my 30 years of service in Infantry battalions, as both an NCO and an officer, including several operational tours. What I believe is that the bigger Army, and the joint sphere beyond that, demands more of officers, perhaps moreso than it ever did, and that these demands are best met by an officer corps that has had the mental preparation that I believe can best be delivered through post secondary education. I do not believe that merely knowing TTPs, or being able to launch a company assault, or plan a live fre range, are ends in themselves. They are tools, acquired as steps along the way. Of course the posession of these skills and of the experience gained in their application will inform the officer's viewpoint in later years, and may serve to keep him firmly grounded. They will not, in and of themselves, guarantee an officer corps that has the mental agility, flexibility, desire to learn and capacity to reason that are all required of higher commanders and staff officers. Indeed, there probably is no guarantee of such an outcome. That notwithstanding, I remain convinced that PSE is a valuable tool to achieve that outcome. I am sorry if you do not share my opinion on this, or if you feel you must belittle what I have attempted to present. I think we have reached an impasse. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Ok - went back to look and this is all I found:



pbi]
Anyway said:


> I would like to think that higher education is a lens, one which focuses innate abilities for thought, reasoning, and expression. The lens of PSE helps the individual recognize and develop those capabilities, perhaps accelerating what they would likely accomplish on their own within a supportive learning environment. Without the lens those attributes still exist, but may take longer to manifest themselves, or simply never have cause to do so if the spark of encouragement or desire never occurs. And like any optical lens, if the 'source' isn't bright enough to start with, the lens will have little effect against the background.
> 
> As has been stated, some officers got caught out when the goalposts moved. While the potential benefits of PSE are recognized (I say potential because some never live up to the touted benefits of higher education anyway), no attempt has been made to allow the identification of those attributes in individuals with or without PSE. One is taken to presume the other, and it hardly needs reiteration to state that education doesn't necessarily equal intelligence.



I don't agree that University broadens the mind, certainly not for the majority of undergrads in non-technical or professional streams.     At least not at the U of C, where class sizes precluded anything but writing a single 10 page paper per class and "teaching to" the midterm and final exam.

I think perhaps those who champion "broadening of the mind" via university are mistaking it for the natural accumulation of maturity which come with advancing years.

You can broaden the mind with On Job Training, either as an NCM or junior officer, with much less hassle and in fewer than four years, plus have practical benefits of doing that "broadening" directly in your field.

If the only reason you have for saying that a university degree is a necessary prerequisite for holding the Queen's Commission because it "broadens the mind", I'd have to say that is a decidedly weak argument to make.

Was it nbk who argued that illegal drugs were another way to "broaden the mind"?  So what is the difference?  And should illegal drugs become part of the training of Canadian officers?

Sarcasm aside, I'm looking for a deeper explanation of "broadening the mind" and some idea of what practical benefits a university degree will give the officer.  The ability to write 10 page papers on demand and stay awake in 3 hour once-weekly lectures are not what I would include among them.  Though I don't suppose those abilities would hurt either. 

I'm writing this before reading your latest reply, I am at work, so I'll need time to look over your last remarks and think over a proper response.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Seems to me that the arguments will not get solved here, because you are both looking at PSE from different angles.  Michael is looking at it the way most young people look at it.  Something to do, not because you have to, but because it is expected.  Parties, last minute cramming, and so on will not an officer make.  On that point, I totally agree with Michael.

However, from the other angle.  PBI went there as a mature student, eyes wide open, knowing what he wanted.  His thinking, or rather, perspective changed, and he sees this as beneficial to a military career.  I cannot see much of an argument against PBI here, either.

The obvious (to me) solution is to apply the same methods used in several other countries.  There are countries that accept University trained personnel into their Forces, but never in to the combat arms.  Combat Arms soldiers that are identified fairly early on are tapped, and after a period of time, are given some officer training, and attached to a sub-unit.  If the person works out, and has proven their ability to lead sub-units, then and only then does the army pay for University.

I don't know how many young officers going through RMC have purposely failed courses in their trade, so they can chose another profession.  We had one going through armour phase training as a Captain, between waiting for courses, and failing trades training, he met the time requirements for promotion.  I know that this is off topic, but it does not make sense to me to spend thousands of scarce dollars putting a person through RMC who is not a proven leader.  Make the person prove himself first, then put him through RMC.  At least for the Combat Arms!


----------



## Michael Dorosh

pbi said:
			
		

> Your correspondence is degenerating to an unfortunately rude tone.



Nonsense, I'm holding you to a higher standard by suggesting you back up your statements with facts or detailed descriptions of what you're talking about.



> Perhaps I offended you with my suggestion that your sojourn in university was indeed wasted.



Could have sworn I stated from the beginning my opinion that my university experience was largely unnecessary.   So since you are agreeing with me, I find it hard to take offence. 



> To begin with, it is abundantly evident to me that we share a different view of the necessary attributes of officers. Yours seem to be quite restricted, and rather "unit-centric": a point of view that I suggest was typical of the Canadian Army until quite recently and traceable, I would argue, to our military cultural descent from the British. I do not quarrel with the need for solid leadership skills at the levels of battalion and below: I have spent 18 of my 30 years of service in Infantry battalions, as both an NCO and an officer, including several operational tours. What I believe is that the bigger Army, and the joint sphere beyond that, demands more of officers, perhaps moreso than it ever did, and that these demands are best met by an officer corps that has had the mental preparation that I believe can best be delivered through post secondary education. I do not believe that merely knowing TTPs, or being able to launch a company assault, or plan a live fre range, are ends in themselves. They are tools, acquired as steps along the way. Of course the posession of these skills and of the experience gained in their application will inform the officer's viewpoint in later years, and may serve to keep him firmly grounded. They will not, in and of themselves, guarantee an officer corps that has the mental agility, flexibility, desire to learn and capacity to reason that are all required of higher commanders and staff officers. Indeed, there probably is no guarantee of such an outcome.



I don't think I'm arguing with any of this.



> That notwithstanding, I remain convinced that PSE is a valuable tool to achieve that outcome.



Yet feel no reason, or perhaps have no ability, to say why.   Learing 10th century Russian history or 14th century Italian religious art (or more importantly, lack of the same) is going to define how successful an officer is going to be in the profession of arms?

I learned more about intelligent debate, discourse, constructing arguments, and forming theses in two years of gabbing on the internet than I did in seven years of university.   I am all for well-rounding of individuals, but if you've honestly looked at the curriculum requirements for a general studies degree these days, or the level of scholarship that passes in universities, I don't see how you can point to any kind of honest benefit to the prospective officer that couldn't be replicated, or replaced, by four years of doing something else.   Apprenticing in a business setting, perhaps, or acting as an aide de camp to a civil servant, get a look at the government/political side of the house?   Four years of keggers, ski club and multiple choice midterm exams seems not really a necessary way to go.


----------



## pbi

_Four years of keggers, ski club and multiple choice midterm exams seems not really a necessary way to go._

Well, if that's what university means to a person, I suppose not. I didn't mean that to me. Perhaps Lance Wiebe is right in his observation: our divergent experiences make us irreconcileable. Long may you hold your opinions. Anyway, its 2300hours here and I've been in this damned ops centre all day. I'm shutting down now. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the arguments will not get solved here, because you are both looking at PSE from different angles.   Michael is looking at it the way most young people look at it.   Something to do, not because you have to, but because it is expected.   Parties, last minute cramming, and so on will not an officer make.   On that point, I totally agree with Michael.
> 
> However, from the other angle.   PBI went there as a mature student, eyes wide open, knowing what he wanted.   His thinking, or rather, perspective changed, and he sees this as beneficial to a military career.   I cannot see much of an argument against PBI here, either.



Isn't the difference really the level of maturity of the student, and not the institution itself?   So what was it, specifically, that university trained pbi to do different or better than had he not gone to university?   And are these types of "lessons" really going to be crucial to an officer's success, and will every officer that goes to university learn them, with officers not going to unversity not learning them?



> The obvious (to me) solution is to apply the same methods used in several other countries.   There are countries that accept University trained personnel into their Forces, but never in to the combat arms.   Combat Arms soldiers that are identified fairly early on are tapped, and after a period of time, are given some officer training, and attached to a sub-unit.   If the person works out, and has proven their ability to lead sub-units, then and only then does the army pay for University.



And again, the question is, what does the university education give to the officer?   That seems to be the whole crux of the question yet no one is willing to answer it.   Like the same tired debate about the regimental system.

"Well, the regimental system has been around for centuries and it's a great tradition and we always win our wars with it."

"Yeah, but they abandoned it in World War One and we still had the best army on either side of the line.   So what is so great about it that makes it unassailable?"

"Ummm....."


----------



## Michael Dorosh

pbi said:
			
		

> _Four years of keggers, ski club and multiple choice midterm exams seems not really a necessary way to go._
> 
> Well, if that's what university means to a person, I suppose not. I didn't mean that to me. Perhaps Lance Wiebe is right in his observation: our divergent experiences make us irreconcileable. Long may you hold your opinions. Anyway, its 2300hours here and I've been in this damned ops centre all day. I'm shutting down now. Cheers.



I wasn't in the ski club and didn't attend a single party.  I also got more As than D's, but more B's than A's.  

Anyway, a bit of a pity that you have nothing significant to say to support your position.  Perhaps a good night's rest will allow you to present something substantial, I'll look forward to it.


----------



## McG

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I have two BAs, and honestly, they could bring them up with the rations these days, at least the ones I got at the U of C were relatively valueless with the exception of that little piece of paper you get, which means UPS et al is more likely to hire you since it presumably means something.
> 
> But it doesn't. I skated through 7 years of University barely having cracked a book - in many cases without even buying the text books. I sucked at math and didn't like doing complex problems, so I took courses where I didn't have to think too much. It was three years before I knew what a "thesis" was. I studied for exams on the day of the exam, on the bus going to school. I got As in some clases, rarely less than a C+ in the rest - I believe two classes in those seven years, both of them math classes which I didn't realize there was no requirement for me to take.


As with most courses that the military may send soldiers on, you can only get out of university what you put into it.   If you only make the effort to get a pass or only the effort to get the "sexy" grades, then you may miss a lot of what was there for you.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Learing 10th century Russian history or 14th century Italian religious art (or more importantly, lack of the same) is going to define how successful an officer is going to be in the profession of arms?


The content of these courses will add very little to one professional military development.   However, if intelligent learning materials are provided then the university student will be exposed to complex opposing arguments that have solid foundations in truth.   This builds the tools to decipher fact from opinion and to formulate ones own intelligent views.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I don't see how you can point to any kind of honest benefit to the prospective officer that couldn't be replicated, or replaced, by four years of doing something else.   Apprenticing in a business setting, perhaps, or acting as an aide de camp to a civil servant, get a look at the government/political side of the house?


I don't see any one other approach that can provide as comprehensive a coverage of the benefits of university (sure some other approaches will cover some of the benefits).   I can also not think of any other approach that offers the benefits in as structured an format.   Lastly, if anyone were to take any route other that university and approach that route with the same effort that you ascribe to university students, then they would be just as far behind (if not farther).


----------



## Infanteer

> To begin with, it is abundantly evident to me that we share a different view of the necessary attributes of officers. Yours seem to be quite restricted, and rather "unit-centric": a point of view that I suggest was typical of the Canadian Army until quite recently and traceable, I would argue, to our military cultural descent from the British. I do not quarrel with the need for solid leadership skills at the levels of battalion and below: I have spent 18 of my 30 years of service in Infantry battalions, as both an NCO and an officer, including several operational tours. What I believe is that the bigger Army, and the joint sphere beyond that, demands more of officers, perhaps moreso than it ever did, and that these demands are best met by an officer corps that has had the mental preparation that I believe can best be delivered through post secondary education. I do not believe that merely knowing TTPs, or being able to launch a company assault, or plan a live fre range, are ends in themselves. They are tools, acquired as steps along the way. Of course the posession of these skills and of the experience gained in their application will inform the officer's viewpoint in later years, and may serve to keep him firmly grounded. They will not, in and of themselves, guarantee an officer corps that has the mental agility, flexibility, desire to learn and capacity to reason that are all required of higher commanders and staff officers. Indeed, there probably is no guarantee of such an outcome. That notwithstanding, I remain convinced that PSE is a valuable tool to achieve that outcome. I am sorry if you do not share my opinion on this, or if you feel you must belittle what I have attempted to present. I think we have reached an impasse. Cheers.



Excellent post sir, agree 100%.


Michael

As I said before, I don't agree that *any* form of PSE is required for the health of the professionalism of the Officer Corps; as I wrote in my post, this education must be geared towards the military profession.   This form of education that PBI and I have advocated is essential as it is the "other half" of the professional officer.   It is all great that an Officer can memorize the tedious orders templates, command a company raid, or administer the unit he is responsible for, but that is merely one aspect of a professional Officer.

Do we grant Medical Doctors addmission to the Medical Profession simply on the grounds that he can do a good job with the scalpel or do we admit Lawyers to the Bar solely on the grounds that they can impress a jury with a good argument?   No, we don't.   As members of professional bodies they are expected to belong to a unique body of knowledge, to contribute to this body, and to understand the ideas and the history behind the techniques that they will use in the conduct of their duties.   These are the rigorous mental abilities required of a professional to put him above an amateur who merely takes soldiers to the field and leads them around shooting things up; the professional recognizes that the profession of arms exists within a constantly evolving field of knowledge and he contributes to his adaptation in order to ensure that the fighting force he belongs to can consistently deliver superior performance in the field of battle.

Sure, there will be those who simply like to practice their profession "in the trenches" so to say.   Some Doctors will want to simply open up a family practice while some lawyers are content to moving up to a small town judge position.   Likewise, some Professional Officers will desire only to serve at the unit level and below, mainly focusing on training and leading troops into combat.   That is admirable, and we must give them the opportunity to do so, however, they must also receive a military education in order to ensure that they are fully aware of the profession in which they operate in.   However, others in the profession will give full passion to the growth of their profession; Doctors will do medical research and write into the New England Journal of Medicine; Lawyers will take part in Government Committees for Legal Reform, practice law at the international level, or rise to the position of the Supreme Court.   The "cream of the crop", so to say, are the ones that we send to Command and General Staff College and the War College.   They will rise to Generalship, they are the ones who contribute to military thought and define doctrine, and serve on the planning staffs for operational and strategic execution of the Army Mission.

In the end, the goal of a military education is to ensure the maximum level of the military during peacetime so that it is prepared to fight in war.   Compare the performance senior commanders in the Second World War of senior commanders from a professional Army, the German Heer, and two amateur ones, the Canadian and the American Armies.   Even though forbidden by Versailles, Von Seekt was able to preserve the professional level of the German Army through an unofficial _Kriegsacadamie_ run at the unit levels.   As a result, the German senior leaders went into the War fully prepared to fight at the operational and strategic level in Europe despite all attempts by the allies to disable them professionally.   Look at the successful Generals at the beginning of the war, most of them were excellent commanders throughout the war, and though often replaced on the fickle grounds of Hitler's opinion, they often excelled where ever they were put.   Guderian, Model, Von Balck, Rommel, Von Manstein.   Even Kesselring, an Air Force General with a professional military education, was able to conduct a brilliant delaying action in Italy that tied down a good portion of the Allied forces there and defeated any Allied idea of taking Germany over from the "soft underbelly" of Europe. We could go on and on naming excellent military commanders; the fact remains that they were drawn from an institution of military professionalism that believed that in order to consistently be successful in war you needed to institutionalize excellence.   One of the core foundations of this excellence was a military education.

Compare the American or Canadian Armies to this system.   There was constant turbulence at high level command within both these Armies.   Marshall, as a Brigadier General, was taken of the heads of many other officers to become the Chief of Staff.   He had to sack hundreds of Generals in order to get rid of amateur cobwebs that had taken over the Army in the interwar period.   Even then, he could not ensure a fully professional fighting force led by professional fighting Officers, his Army's first challenge at Kasserine was an abject failure against a hounded German Army in retreat from Egypt.   The Canadian Army was no different.   Most of the history I have read seems to come to the conclusion that in general the performance of senior Canadian leaders was sub-par.   Of course, military genius will rise up under the crucible of fire to lead forces to victory.   The US possessed plenty of these 30 year old Generals in the form of Gavin, Abrahms, etc, while for Canada Hoffmeister was a good example.   However, this is what a professional system seeks to avoid; awaiting military genius to rise up and lead your Army to victory.   The Allies were fortunate in World War II to have a preponderance of material advantage and the fact that the Soviet Union was tieing down a majority of the combat power of the German Army in order to allow their forces to develop the leadership required for victory.   Perhaps we will not have that luxury at a future date.

Bottom line, I believe we need a fully professionalized Officer Corps.   Although it may seem redundent to have such a high degree of training at low levels such as company command, we need an excellent field with which to draw our Brigade Commanders, our members of the Defence Staff, and ultimately, our Chief of Land Staff and CDS with.   By allowing the best sorts of professionals to these levels, we can have tehir calibre of professional excellence filter down into the lower levels of command, ensuring that even the newest Lieutenant will be a true professional fighting Officer.



> I don't agree that University broadens the mind, certainly not for the majority of undergrads in non-technical or professional streams.    At least not at the U of C, where class sizes precluded anything but writing a single 10 page paper per class and "teaching to" the midterm and final exam.



I, for one, am critical of the way universities seem to attempt to test the knowledge that one has gained.   I believe it has a very subjective nature to it.   As I alluded to in my original proposal for a professional education, "*Many of these courses will involve work outside of the conventional classroom setting using TEWT's, officer "tours", and visiting other places relevent to the course of study.*"   Obviously, the military education cannot rely on its Officer Cadets turning in one term paper on a subject and making a few classes a week.   RMC and its professional instructors will have to think of innovative ways of delivering and evaluating a military education that promotes independent thought in the officers (I can think of a bunch right now).



> I think perhaps those who champion "broadening of the mind" via university are mistaking it for the natural accumulation of maturity which come with advancing years.



True, a certain level of maturity is required to attempt to learn beyond the highschool level.   This is why I feel many 18 year olds have a hard time with university; they receive such a shock my living on their own and being immersed into a different environment that they cannot focus on their studies.   Result: universities must "dumb down" there first and second year material in order to avoid failing many students.

Perhaps this a further argument in favour of my proposal to have all officers drawn from the ranks.   In order to ensure that the candidates come into the RMC on the best possible footing to receive a professional education, basic training and two years in the ranks (tempered with training opportunities and perhaps deployment on operations) will mean that the Officer Corps is getting a better supply of "raw clay" on the whole because they have been given the time to develop a mental framework with which to approach a military education?

What do you guys think?



> You can broaden the mind with On Job Training, either as an NCM or junior officer, with much less hassle and in fewer than four years, plus have practical benefits of doing that "broadening" directly in your field.



You can only understand the elements of the military profession to a certain degree in the field.   If you limit your professional development to this, your essentially "reinventing the wheel".   An post ex-AAR can only deliver so much in terms of benefits.   A higher form of professional debate and discussion is needed to draw the most from an Army's experience.   This is how the Prussians were able to maintain a superior military force going into the Wars of Unification in the mid-1800's, despite having not fought a war for 45 years.   They ensured that their leaders were professionals, keen students of the art of war who studied historical case studies, observed how other armies were doing things, and constantly reevaluated their own tactics and techniques.   The military profession can demand no less.



> If the only reason you have for saying that a university degree is a necessary prerequisite for holding the Queen's Commission because it "broadens the mind", I'd have to say that is a decidedly weak argument to make.



I have argued that a *military education* is and essential foundation of a highly professional Officer Corps.   Hopefully, I am getting somewhere with my posts.   I know you are an avid reader Michael, and if you are still skeptical Michael, I can recommend or lend you the material that I've been looking at that I am getting my ideas from.



> Was it nbk who argued that illegal drugs were another way to "broaden the mind"?   So what is the difference?   And should illegal drugs become part of the training of Canadian officers?



That's silly, and you know it Michael.



> Sarcasm aside, I'm looking for a deeper explanation of "broadening the mind" and some idea of what practical benefits a university degree will give the officer.   The ability to write 10 page papers on demand and stay awake in 3 hour once-weekly lectures are not what I would include among them.   Though I don't suppose those abilities would hurt either.



Okay, at least you acknowledged that that was silly.   I feel I've answered your questions on how we must educate the military professional.   Remember, the endstate is an officer that knows how to think, not what to think.


----------



## Brad Sallows

People go through university for a host of reasons.   At the end, some people have merely learned "what to think", but some have learned "how to think".   The university imposes discipline on learning "how to think".   That is the primary advantage - call it broadening of the mind.   The secondary advantage is that it exposes the student to the widest possible array of political and social cultures - call it broadening of the attitude.   Both will serve the senior officer (ie. field grade and above) well.   Some may think university unnecessary to obtain these qualities.   However, I've met a few officers who have become remarkably narrow-minded by virtue of being practically cloistered within purely military culture since graduating high school.   We may be having difficulty getting Canadians to understand the military, but we can entirely control whether the military understands Canadians.

Each of us can argue that in some way we have learned "how to think" which is not attributable to university education.   Not everyone will deliberately pursue that or stumble over it by accident.   Some need a gentle push.

University PSE is the default because we don't have a 3- or 4- or 5-year "Bachelor of Combat Arms" program at RMC.   Perhaps if we grafted the equivalent of 4 years of selected psychology, political and social "sciences", history, etc onto the mandated staff college courses we could achieve the same ends.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

McG said:
			
		

> As with most courses that the military may send soldiers on, you can only get out of university what you put into it.   If you only make the effort to get a pass or only the effort to get the "sexy" grades, then you may miss a lot of what was there for you.



This is obviously the case, let's take this as a given.



> The content of these courses will add very little to one professional military development.   However, if intelligent learning materials are provided then the university student will be exposed to complex opposing arguments that have solid foundations in truth.   This builds the tools to decipher fact from opinion and to formulate ones own intelligent views.



Not to be rude, but so what?   Combat operations are not arenas of debate they are hostile environments where orders are given and humans die.   Putting aside combat operations, ask ourselves - what do officers really need to know?   Looking at a typical reserve unit, say, ok you need guys running the kit shop, handling the politics of the regimental senate, liasing with the ladies auxiliary, talking to the press, convincing brigade that you really do need the little red wagon on your requisition for training, a million things.   Give me an example of complex opposing arguments in a young officer's life, and demonstrate that university education was responsible for him making the right decision.   The argument here is that you MUST have this four years otherwise you cannot possibly be an officer.   Demonstrate why.



> I don't see any one other approach that can provide as comprehensive a coverage of the benefits of university (sure some other approaches will cover some of the benefits).   I can also not think of any other approach that offers the benefits in as structured an format.   Lastly, if anyone were to take any route other that university and approach that route with the same effort that you ascribe to university students, then they would be just as far behind (if not farther).



Again, this is a given, and again, what benefits are you talking about?   The ones from para 2?   How about some concrete examples of how university education will benefit a young officer.   Make up a hypothetical, I'd in fact prefer that, or use personal experience.   Either or.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

So all I am getting here is that University is a litmus test as to the intelligence of prospective officers, at least as far as university degrees are structured now.

Infanteer, I am dead serious about nbk's "mind broadening" statement.  Explain the difference to me.  It's a vague concept which we are probably defining differently, at least for purposes of this discussion. 

Honestly, we all are saying there are no direct, tangible benefits to PSE, are we not?  Cause if so, none have been identified.

If it is just a litmus test, is it really any different than the old litmus test - how much money your father had?


----------



## McG

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Not to be rude, but so what?   Combat operations are not arenas of debate they are hostile environments where orders are given and humans die.   Putting aside combat operations, ask ourselves - what do officers really need to know?   Looking at a typical reserve unit, say, ok you need guys running the kit shop, handling the politics of the regimental senate, liasing with the ladies auxiliary, talking to the press, convincing brigade that you really do need the little red wagon on your requisition for training, a million things.   Give me an example of complex opposing arguments in a young officer's life, and demonstrate that university education was responsible for him making the right decision.


The officer's job does not start and end with combat.   Officers are the advisors to the political world on issues of national security?   How do you advise on that if you do not understand international politics and law?   Officers are expected to see the ethical approach in all situations.   Officers must function in the three block war (think PSO & war fighting in the same city).   Reserve officers must be able to function if mobilized (so they need to function anywhere a regular officer would have to function).   Officers can be called on for mediation between lower elements of warring factions in PSO operations.   



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The argument here is that you MUST have this four years otherwise you cannot possibly be an officer.   Demonstrate why.


No.   The argument is that after four years of university you will have a better officer and an officer that has the foundations to develop as a senior officer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Allright, let a grade 10 drop-out say in a few words what you eggheads take 3 pages to say.   It doesn't matter what course or training, etc., that you take. Its simple really, no mind will be expanded or broadened without the will and drive to make it so.  I consider myself [be careful here ego-boy]  somewhat  intelligent and that obviously didn't come from PSE, it came because I want to expand my knowledge.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Hi McG - I should probably let this sit and post when I'm not at work.   I do recognize that officers are more than just combat - I think I tried to mention that in my post, but did a poor job.

As for your last - the argument is that PSE be a mandatory requirement for commissioning.   You are saying it is a "nice to have" but the others are saying it is a "must have".   I'm just wondering why.   Yes, obviously you answer that by saying you believe it produces a "better officer", but you do nothing to convince me that this is the case.   What is it about university that makes for this "better officer" and why does he need to surrender four years of his life to get it?   It just seems that the benefits - whatever they are - are paltry compared to the time and money expended.


----------



## McG

Why would we want all officers to have university education?  I do not think 100% is required, but the majority should have it.  As I said above, it is the foundation to prepare for senior officer roles.  It also prepares officers for what will be expected at staff college.

ROTP candidates are selected based on potential and then given the university education so that they may one day aspire to go beyond the rank of Maj.

DEO candidates are selected based on potential and required to come with a university education so that they too may on day aspire to go beyond the rank of Maj.

UTPNCM candidates are selected based on potential and then given the university education so that they may one day aspire to go beyond the rank of Maj.

CFR candidates are selected based on potential but they are not given the university education.  Many have the bulk of thier experience behind them and will never see beyond Maj.  However, the Army Officer degree program does offer them an opportunity to get that university education.


----------



## Drummy

To all concerned,

No matter the outcome gentlemen, I believe this has been one of the better debates on these forums in quite some time. There hasn't been a lot of flaming and name calling like some threads, and has been conducted in a very interesting and gentlemanly manner.

My congratulations.     

Drummy


----------



## AndrewWGrieve

I am a young reserve officer with just over a year in the military and in a few days I will be entering the third year of my degree.   Personally, I have found that my university education has assisted me in my military career.   Very little of the information I have learned at university has been useful in the military, the only exception being the slight improvement in my writing ability that has come with continual criticism at school; it has not been the content that has improved my ability to perform as an officer.

What has improved my ability to perform as an officer is the exposure to extremely varied points of view from an extremely varied university populace and the consistently intelligent debate that has ensued when our viewpoints clash.   It has made me a far more open-minded person; I am far more willing to closely examine another's point of view, and critically examine my own ideas as well, now that I have been at university for two years.   Admittedly, some of this may simply be an increase in maturity with age and experience, but I do feel that my university education has postively impacted my outlook on the world.   This certainly has been an asset in the military, as I attempt to balance the different opinions of the senior NCOs under my command and try to better understand, influence, and comply with my commander's intent.   In addition, my university education has improved my ability to learn, and given my a greater understanding of the importance of research and higher-level comprehension when doing my job.   

However, I have met many officers for whom their experiences at university obviously did not change and improve them as it has for myself.   As others have said, you only get out of university what you put into it, and therefore some officers receive very little from their education.   

As a litmus test, university is, in my opinion as a student, absolutely useless.   From year to year a higher and higher proportion of the population receive university education, while from year to year the proportion of the population intelligent and driven enough to become a competent officer does not increase.   I meet many students at university who barely pass and do absolutely no work.   For them, a university education is meaningless, as they have put nothing into it and received nothing out of it.   I feel, personally, that for a university education to be an effective litmus test for an officer the standard must be raised such that only a student with at least 70% is given any credit by the military for their university education.   That is just below the mean and easily attainable by anyone with modest intelligence and the ability to work hard.   

University education should be seen by the military as an asset for any officer, but I agree that it would be far more beneficial to give officers an professional education in war than it would be to subsidize their university education.   There should be far more courses offered by correspondence to all officers within the military, reserve and regular force, that critically examine the doctrine of the canadian forces, the doctrine of our enemies, current events as they relate to the military, and past conflicts.   All officers should be required, every year, to publish at least one paper examining an aspect of our military, a foreign military, or a current or past conflict and engage in online discussion with other officers who critically examine their papers.   This would give every officer, from the young 2Lt to the older BGen the chance to gain a greater understanding of the opinions of other officers and of the military profession as a whole.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael:


> Not to be rude, but so what?  Combat operations are not arenas of debate they are hostile environments where orders are given and humans die.  Putting aside combat operations, ask ourselves - what do officers really need to know?  Looking at a typical reserve unit, say, ok you need guys running the kit shop, handling the politics of the regimental senate, liasing with the ladies auxiliary, talking to the press, convincing brigade that you really do need the little red wagon on your requisition for training, a million things.  Give me an example of complex opposing arguments in a young officer's life, and demonstrate that university education was responsible for him making the right decision.  The argument here is that you MUST have this four years otherwise you cannot possibly be an officer.  Demonstrate why.



Command in battle is only one, albeit the most important function of a professional officer.  They must occupy key staff positions, plan and execute complex training cycles, manage the large institution of the military.  We cannot simply say "Well, he did a damn fine job on that platoon attack, so he's fit to do these as well."
As well, there are "unofficial" duties that professional officers must fulfill in order to ensure the vitality of the profession.  Contributing to the professional dialogue in the form of journals and study groups, constantly evaluate ones own military forces and expand on the strengths and fix the shortcomings, pay attention the world events and the progression of human conflict in order to alter the way we organize to be best prepared for the next war.

All these are important skills of a military professional.  We cannot sit back and hope to get talented officers that can do this.  With the military education, we must use it both to determine who is fit and give those that are the mental tools to do this.  Will it ensure that 100% of officers fit the ideal mold?  No, of course not; nothing is perfect.  But I firmly believe that this system will provide the greatest aggregate increase of professional abilities within the Officer Corps.  Better to have 5 very good Majors out of 10 because you raised the bar then to hope for 2 good ones out of 20 because you didn't. 

Bruce:


> Its simple really, no mind will be expanded or broadened without the will and drive to make it so.  I consider myself [be careful here ego-boy]  somewhat  intelligent and that obviously didn't come from PSE, it came because I want to expand my knowledge.



Exactly.  This is why I am a proponent of service in the ranks for Officers.  A selection board evaluating the leadership abilities of soldiers combined with a rigorous military education will ensure that those who make it to their commission are those who possess the drive to make it so.  Not only has the military education served as the "litmus test", separating the "rams from the sheep", but those that do make it will have been given a solid starting point in which to base their professional career upon.  Just because one has grade 10 education does not mean they should be precluded from attempting if they are deemed suitable; if they show the will and determination and pass the examinations and PO checks, then they will be commissioned; just as a Officer Cadet who came from a prestigious private school would.


Michael: (Again   You're really forcing me to examine the foundations of my claims....)



> Infanteer, I am dead serious about nbk's "mind broadening" statement.  Explain the difference to me.  It's a vague concept which we are probably defining differently, at least for purposes of this discussion.



Using mind-altering substances to "broaden ones mind" is simply using the chemical destruction of physiological functions in order to alter sensory perception.  The endstate can be loss in mental capabilities or addiction.  Using an military education to "broaden one's mind" introduces a Cadet to the interdisciplinary study of the profession of Arms.  It should immerse him in the history and the theory of battle in order to give him further analytic tools to be a *thinking* Officer in what ever position he is assigned.  I firmly believe that giving Officer's formulae, such as the 7 steps of battle procedure or the 16 (or 15 or 18, what is it these days?!?) point process of to lead a fighting patrol is inappropriate and will only result in failure, as you are constricting a commanders ability to think "outside the box".  THIS IS A CHECKLIST MENTALITY AND LEAVES NO ROOM FOR INITIATIVE AND CREATIVITY IN THE BATTLEFIELD.  The Germans, when teaching something, would always say "This is not a Formula!"  They insisted that there Officers should always think about what they were to do in battle; if they felt that it would not work, they would discard it and do something else.

A proper military education broadens their mind by giving them more empirical and analytical groundwork to approach each unique military problem with and devise the best approach.



> If it is just a litmus test, is it really any different than the old litmus test - how much money your father had?



No; using money or social status as a determinant does nothing to find out if the person is suitable to join the profession.  Using a rigorous military education followed by comprehensive exams (and I believe preceded by prior service) can help to ensure that on the whole, the men and women who compose of a military's Officer Corps have gained their commissions through merit alone and have demonstrated their abilities through objective standards (of which an education is a key part).

I really do not like to refer to the military training I am advocating as a "university education" in the conventional sense as it seems a bit too loaded.  We get the idea of university as a place to study basket weaving, skipping class, working the beer bong and the sorority sisters on the weekend, and scrambling for good grades in your final year to get accepted into a Business Admin program or Law School.  This is not the idea of a "university education" that I wish to promote with my idea.

What the military education entails is a full immersion into all aspects of the profession of arms for the Officer Cadet.  Not only should the military education cover the more "academic" subjects such as history and military theory, but it should utilize "hands on work" as well.  Writing an academic term paper on Clausewitz or the organization of the 5th Canadian Armoured Division is one aspect of the military education.  Other aspects, in,  say a military history course, would be discussions, problem sets involving decision making processes, wargaming (yes, the _Kriegspiele_ has been an essential part of a military education) and other sorts of engaging projects.  Introductory tactics courses, as I explained above, could offer a theoretical start into Army Leadership, with the second half of the course entailing many aspects of a Phase II (CAP) Course.  The military education should take a holistic approach to educating Officer Cadets to look at their profession.

It is not a litmus test for officers but it is a solid foundation on which to build the profession upon.  Yes, different people will take from the military education what they will, but I think the goal is to increase the professional level of the Officer Corps as a whole.

I think you could provide an education like this over a 3-3.5 year timespan on a full time basis.  Following the completion of the military education, all officers will write a series of comprehensive, professional examinations.  Successful completion of the exams can be followed by a 6 month Army Tactics Course, which begins the young professionals training in the techniques of command, starting with the battalion level (remember, two levels up).  The first part of the course would entail a general course of study for all Army Officers, ensuring that Logistics Officers are familiar with Infantry Platoons and Infantry Officers know how their supply system works.  The second half of the course would be trade specific (the equivalent of Phase III), in which the Cadets learn the nuts-and-bolts of the platoon that they will command.

Following this would come commissioning to Lieutenant and posting to one's first command.

Why do I through the training aspects into the mix?  A proper military education should be viewed as part and parcel of the training required for a commission.  A Doctor can not simply practice medicine by being taught to do a heart transplant.  He must learn about the human anatomy, the history of heart surgery, and nuances of the cardiovascular system, what has been tried and didn't work, where breakthroughs are being made.  The same with a Professional Officer, whether it applies to company attacks, staff planning, or winning wars; knowledge is key to the thinking commander, and the classroom setting (what we like to define as a university education) is one of the best ways for imparting much of the knowledge essential to the professional Officer.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Infanteer;

Your arguments are well thought out, cohesive, and persuasive.

It is difficult to find fault with your logic.

But ( you knew there was a "but", right?)  if your thoughts were implemented, and made in to official policy, just how many officers would we end up with?  Now, I know, the argument about quality over quantity, but there has to be a medium, where we get the best of both.  Your thesis (no, I never had any PSE, but it sounds like a good thesis topic) would undoubtedly give us professional officers, but in too few a quantity to meet our needs.

The second "but" is how would your policy be accepted by our political masters?  I have thoughts on this, but I would like to hear yours....


----------



## Infanteer

Yes Lance, the devil is in the details.  I am sure the next step if this was to be taken seriously would be to look at the numbers of Officers being recruited and the speed of assession (promotion to different command levels) of ALL Ranks within the Army.  As well, a bottom up review of positions within the Army would need to be down, to see what was required and what was extraneous (NDHQ would be a good start).

I am of the personal opinion that the Officer Corps, CF wide, could be pared down.  I have looked at the figures, and I see that the current numbers have Officers at 22% of the strength of the Reg Force (1 Officer for every 4 NCMs...).  From all the reading I've seen on Army efficiency, a ration of 5-10% is historically shown to be the optimal level.  I've yet to see a good argument for why we need such a large Officer Corps; I refuse to accept mobilization for an answer, because that is just preparing for the last war.  Obviously, their are bureaucratic processes at work here (unification, civilianization) that have allowed the level to creep up to the bloat it is at today.

If we were willing to accept a professional military education as being better for the vitality of the profession of arms, we could move this discussion into discussing the best ways to intergrate this into the Army (and the Forces in general).  I have my own ideas, I'd love to hear what your experience has given you.


----------



## Bartok5

Michael,

You have stated your (dare I say our) position well.  PBI (who I know in passing) has some valid points.  Although I must say that it is exceedingly difficult to articulate and quantify the perceived benefits of a PSE in terms of "broad officer qualities".  This is particularly difficult within the Canadian Army context, where meaningful "command" ends at the battalion level or below.  

 I would tentatively support PBI's contention that PSE "can't hurt".  But I would also argue that it provides nothing of quantifiable benefit at the entry to mid-levels of commissioned service.  And therein lies the rub.  Insistence upon an entry-level post-secondary education "can't hurt", right?  Well, only if you accept the notion that such "prerequisites" preclude a substantial body of potential commissioned recruits.  The minute you make PSE a recruitment and/or junior (eg. Capt to Major) promotion gate-way, you preclude (or unduly discourage) an untold number of otherwise suitable candidates for the commissioned profession of arms.  Factor in the bilingualism requirement (even if you've never had a reason to use it in 17 years of service) and you have yet another "pointless hoop" for the prospective officer to leap through.  

At the end of the day, If we can't state with certainty that PSE is a quantifiable "must-have qualifier" for entry-level comiissioned service, then we do ourselves an enormous  potential disservice by making the BA/BSc a PREREQUISITE for commissioned service.  Such operationallly irrelevant artificial gateways for entry-level service only serve to reduce our prospective recruiting base.

Moving on, I wont dispute PBI's argument that PSE and/or a Master's Degree is "good" for encouraging free/out-of-the-box thought in higher appointments.  But to suggest for a moment that a "Basket-Weaving 101" degree from Seneca College is a prerequisite for Battalion Command or anything below?  I'm sorry, but I don't buy that for a second.  

I will take the argument a step further in suggesting that an MBA or a Masters in "Military Studies" from RMC does absolutely zero to prepare an officer for the intellectual demands of higher operational duty.  Note that I don't say "higher operational command", because within the Canadian Army there is none.  Even Battalion Commanders in today's Army are sub-unit "force generators", but that is a whole other topic, isn't it?  An MBA is an admittedly desirable qualification for today's battalion DCO, given his/her broad scope of financial responsibility for Public and Non-Public Funds.  But that's not really the point, is it?  Show me where a Post-Grad degree has any appreciable bearing upon an officer's abillity to "force generate" at battalion level and below, and I will quite willingly concede the point.  With all due respect, I am not holding my breath.....

So, if the basic bachelor's degree has zero quantifiable bearing on the ability of an officer to perform tactical command at the platoon and company levels, and the post-grad degree has no discernable impact upon the same officer's ability to fulfill his/her responsibilitiies as a unit-llevel "force generator" producing "plug and play" sub-units for the employment of others, just where does this oh-so-precious higher education come into play?  As "second fiddle" officers within allied coalition HQs?  Ooohhhh - big influence there...  As formation Commanders?  We don't have formations - our Brigade HQs are now nothing more than "force generators" twice-removed.  

So somebody please tell me, where does the PSE or Post-Grad Degree come into meaningful play?  And please, spare me the "it makes for a better all-round officer" tripe.  My personal experience has been the exact opposite.  Those who join the Army and seek a commssiion by virtue of a DEO or ROTP degree would be exceedingly fortunate to find their own ass with a seasoned (and very patient) WO guiding their hands.  

I am going to stop here, before I really get myself on a roll.  Suffice it to say that I believe APPLICABLE degrees and the "higher" academic experience have a role to play.  But to disenfranchise operationally-proven serving members who lack such "qualifications?  To inisist that everyone pursuing commissioned service possess such a pedigree as basic enrolment criteria?  Such "politically-correct" policies are utterly counter-productive madness.  Full-Stop.


----------



## pbi

I'm back. It's just after morning brief so I have a few minutes. Some excellent posting has been going on while I was ZZZZZZ. That is the great joy of this site.


_Your arguments are well thought out, cohesive, and persuasive_.

I agree. In general I think Infanteer has advanced the argument in a far more capable manner than I could have.

_It is difficult to find fault with your logic.__But ( you knew there was a "but", right?)   if your thoughts were implemented, and made in to official policy, just how many officers would we end up with?   Now, I know, the argument about quality over quantity, but there has to be a medium, where we get the best of both.   Your thesis (no, I never had any PSE, but it sounds like a good thesis topic) would undoubtedly give us professional officers, but in too few a quantity to meet our needs._

While I remain unconvinced that in the Army we currently have "too many" officers (Based on what I see in LFWA and in our Bde, I think we actually have them ill-distributed, since there are a number of critical shortages), I am a believer in re-examining how we employ our WO class vice our officers. Having worked in both an Area and a Bde HQ, and now being in a US-driven Div-level HQ, I think that we wrongly insist on too many staff positions being filled by Capts that could be ably done by various grades of WO. The US seems much better at this, both in the employment of their senior E-grades and their WO grades. As well, I see no reason that at least one platoon/troop in a subunit could not be commanded by a WO. _De facto_, they often are now. I believe that the Germans do this (I'll have to ask my boss...). Another obvious target is the Canadian insistence that a rotary-wing pilot be a commissioned officer, as opposed to other forces such as the US or UK who permit WOs or even Sgts to be RWAC pilots.

_The second "but" is how would your policy be accepted by our political masters?   I have thoughts on this, but I would like to hear yours....
_

It was, I believe, political pressure (or at least encouragementl) at the MND level that led to the adoption of the requirement, as an outcome of recommendations arising from the Somalia inquiry(TBC..) I think the government would be only too happy because it would achieve three results:

-continue the transition that has already begun, and which Treasury Board (and therefore the Govt) has agreed to fund and which is to my way of thinking a benefit for the Army;

-benefit the country as a while by increasing the educational level of the nation through the first order result of more graduates, and the second order result that the children of graduates tend to go on to PSE themselves; and

-benefit the individual for the reasons that have been ably expressed here by others.

I think they would be for it. 

On reflection, and to go back to my original question at the start of all of this, I also believe that a combination of service in the ranks with PSE (preferably in a civilian university but acceptable in a military setting if it does not degenerate into rote learning) will produce a solid, well-rounded officer corps. This would be something like the modern German system. We might not train as many officers, but as I reflected above we might want to ask ourselves how many we need. Cheers.


----------



## Spr.Earl

You all have made very good pros and cons for higher education for the Officer Corp.
A Degree does not make an Officer.

What say you if we had a just a Collage like Sandhurst were you pass or fail as an Officer as Sandhurst only teaches the Art of War in all repsects from logistics to the front line and all in between.
Sandhurst is a true War Collage should we have the same?
No RMC is not the same.

Out of Sandhurst the Brits. have produced some of the best and worst but it is still true Miliatary Collage.
All's I care is that those above me now the Art of War and can lead me.
I have served with Sappers with Degrees which blew me away!!


----------



## Infanteer

Mark C:



> I would tentatively support PBI's contention that PSE "can't hurt".   But I would also argue that it provides nothing of quantifiable benefit at the entry to mid-levels of commissioned service.   And therein lies the rub.   Insistence upon an entry-level post-secondary education "can't hurt", right?   Well, only if you accept the notion that such "prerequisites" preclude a substantial body of potential commissioned recruits.   The minute you make PSE a recruitment and/or junior (eg. Capt to Major) promotion gate-way, you preclude (or unduly discourage) an untold number of otherwise suitable candidates for the commissioned profession of arms.   Factor in the bilingualism requirement (even if you've never had a reason to use it in 17 years of service) and you have yet another "pointless hoop" for the prospective officer to leap through.
> 
> At the end of the day, If we can't state with certainty that PSE is a quantifiable "must-have qualifier" for entry-level comiissioned service, then we do ourselves an enormous   potential disservice by making the BA/BSc a PREREQUISITE for commissioned service.   Such operationallly irrelevant artificial gateways for entry-level service only serve to reduce our prospective recruiting base.



Rather then view the argument as one for or against a PSE, would it make more sense if the "for" position was arguing that some academic subjects, presented in a classroom setting, are just as vital to the training of young Officers as are tactics and techniques taught in the field in Gagetown?   Look over the fields I presented in my original proposition and tell me if you think it would be advantageous to instill these in our young officers in a environment in which they are forced to think and evaluate the concepts and ideas as opposed to checking the box off as "passed".

The only reason the topic falls back upon a PSE is because making a military education a degreed program helps to define the level of training an officer is provided.   I would like to think that their is more of a difference between a Warrant Officer and a Lieutenant then time-in and the rank slip on they wear.

PBI



> While I remain unconvinced that in the Army we currently have "too many" officers (Based on what I see in LFWA and in our Bde, I think we actually have them ill-distributed, since there are a number of critical shortages), I am a believer in re-examining how we employ our WO class vice our officers.



Since you have more direct experience with this, I'll take in the ill-distributed point.   Whether it is "too many" or "ill distributed", both problems (or a combination of these, which may be the most plausible) would point to organizational problems.   That being said, any implementation of the ideas many of us have put forward here would require some sort of organizational reform within the CF.

These are difficult questions, that is why there is fierce debate on both sides.   But it is best that we address them.   One can't always blame our shortcomings on the easy problems (we need more privates), because if all our problems were that simple, wouldn't they have been figured out years ago?



> Having worked in both an Area and a Bde HQ, and now being in a US-driven Div-level HQ, I think that we wrongly insist on too many staff positions being filled by Capts that could be ably done by various grades of WO. The US seems much better at this, both in the employment of their senior E-grades and their WO grades. As well, I see no reason that at least one platoon/troop in a subunit could not be commanded by a WO. De facto, they often are now. I believe that the Germans do this (I'll have to ask my boss...).



I agree fully.   I see no need to fritter away the capabilities of a professionally trained Officer in positions like "Assistant Adjutant".   As well, many of these positions that the Army insists on filling with Captains are probably better suited to the vocational excellence that a Warrant Officer has developed with 15-20 years of service.



> Another obvious target is the Canadian insistence that a rotary-wing pilot be a commissioned officer, as opposed to other forces such as the US or UK who permit WOs or even Sgts to be RWAC pilots.



Yep, I agree there as well.   There should be a split between those who simply want to fly, and those who want to commit themselves to the profession of Air Power or the Fleet.   I have some ideas; I would like to hear from Zoomie, Inch, and Ex-Dragoon about what they feel on the necessity of a professional education for Air Force and Naval Officers.   I am currently reading the biography of USAF Colonel John Boyd, so there should be some interesting points on the flyer side of that to draw from his life.



> I also believe that a combination of service in the ranks with PSE (preferably in a civilian university but acceptable in a military setting if it does not degenerate into rote learning) will produce a solid, well-rounded officer corps.



I will agree with that statement except for the civilian university part.   By doing so, we would risk the required elements of a military education not being instilled in Cadets.   If we send them to a civilian university, they will learn about 18th Gay and Lesbian Literature and the Artwork of Phoenicia.   This type of education is irrelevant to a military professional, and the "against" people would be correct in opposing it.   It is the "degenerate into rote learning" that is the key.   

The military schooling at the RMC that Cadets must receive should be among the best that Canada can provide.   We must attempt to draw in the best instructors, both civilian and military, in order to ensure a first-rate military education.   I remember a great quote (can't find it now) about the American Colonel that Marshall put in charge of Officer Development in the US.   This Officer had managed to get on an exchange with the German Army and get his military education there in the early 1930's.   His military education consisted of lectures by Oberth and Von Braun on the development of their rocket technology and physics, Guderian's and Liddell Hart's theories on warfare, and some preeminent German politicians, who had been at Versailles, lecturing about international relations.   This opportunity, when provided in an academic setting that requires critical thought, will ensure that our officers will be true professionals.

Earl:



> What say you if we had a just a Collage like Sandhurst were you pass or fail as an Officer as Sandhurst only teaches the Art of War in all repsects from logistics to the front line and all in between.
> Sandhurst is a true War Collage should we have the same?
> No RMC is not the same.



That is what I advocated.   I said earlier that RMC was no different then a conventional civilian university with a bit of Cadet training.

I've advocated turning RMC into a facility capable of providing a full military education as I detailed earlier.   It would be designed along the lines of the German _Kreigsacadamie_, which turned out the some of the finest military professionals for over a century (and which Sandhurst was modelled on as well).


----------



## pbi

Infanteer: Good points. I think that is probably possible to develop a true military university, one that concentrates on developing the mind rather than on making beds and beasting junior cadets (you can tell I'm not a ringknocker...). Quantico was run very much like a university, with electives, self-study, a fantastic guest speaker program, etc. However, I'm not quite as dismissive as you are about the value of a civilian education. First off, I think you can probably get a BA without taking any BS "PC" courses at all. If you are forced into taking electives like that, then the officer should take it as a challenge to stand up and demolish these sods. That is what I loved about the residence classes when I did UTPO: the chance to bring 20 plus years of life and military experience into the classroom and use it to gun down (but also to educate...) some of these little leftwing babblers who would otherwise spout off unopposed. We shouldn't be afraid of challenges like that. The real problem might not be the civilian university itself, but the possible idleness of the young officer in selectin BS subjects. Cheers.


----------



## pbi

Not to re-open the wound, but as promised I finally had a chat with our Chief of Staff here in CJTF76, a US Army Infantry Colonel with lots of service. What he had to say on the subject can be distilled to the following.

An officer's previous service in the ranks or his basic human traits will take him as far as platoon commander and maybe company commander. There is no real direct need for PSE at those levels. After that, at battalion and beyond, the COS stated that an officer "would be lost" without PSE. He felt that there has to be a broader outlook, an ability to study, to analyze, to consider the opposing point of view. The type of ops CJTF76 are engaged in here (in his opinion) are an example of the demands that the modern Army puts on officers and why these skills and traits are needed  . When I asked him, he didn't distinguish between a civvy or military degree, saying that didn't matter, although he did say that he thought there was a need for some political studies, philosophy, psychology, etc. in whatever course of studies was followed. He explained that the US Army gets its officers from West Point, ROTC and OCS (mostly for soldiers in the ranks) When I broached the idea that some people see the requirement for a degree as an obstacle to an otherwise able officer, he stated that in his opinion for an able officer it was not an obstacle.

While the COS comes from an Army that has been all-degreed for a long time, it was interesting to hear his opinion. Take them for whatever they may be worth to you. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, dragging up this excellent thread, I wanted to reply to something that Mark posted that has been nagging me in the back of my mind with regards to how we train our Officers.



			
				Mark C said:
			
		

> I will take the argument a step further in suggesting that an MBA or a Masters in "Military Studies" from RMC does absolutely zero to prepare an officer for the intellectual demands of higher operational duty.   Note that I don't say "higher operational command", because within the Canadian Army there is none.   Even Battalion Commanders in today's Army are sub-unit "force generators", but that is a whole other topic, isn't it?   An MBA is an admittedly desirable qualification for today's battalion DCO, given his/her broad scope of financial responsibility for Public and Non-Public Funds.   But that's not really the point, is it?   Show me where a Post-Grad degree has any appreciable bearing upon an officer's ability to "force generate" at battalion level and below, and I will quite willingly concede the point.   With all due respect, I am not holding my breath.....
> 
> So, if the basic bachelor's degree has zero quantifiable bearing on the ability of an officer to perform tactical command at the platoon and company levels, and the post-grad degree has no discernable impact upon the same officer's ability to fulfill his/her responsibilities as a unit-level "force generator" producing "plug and play" sub-units for the employment of others, just where does this oh-so-precious higher education come into play?   As "second fiddle" officers within allied coalition HQs?   Ooohhhh - big influence there...   As formation Commanders?   We don't have formations - our Brigade HQs are now nothing more than "force generators" twice-removed.




The Canadian Forces constantly preaches the capability of a commander to think "two-levels up".   This is doctrine dragged from the manuals of the German Army.   It goes along with other concepts such as commander's intent (central to _Aufstragstaktik_) and main effort (_Schwerpunkt_) that I've seen bandied around the Canadian Army in the effort to make us appear as a rapid and fluid fighting force.   Whatever the degree of lip-service that is paid to these doctrinal concepts, I believe it is essential to train and educate our commanders "two levels up".   The most effective way of doing so is by teaching the student the top level first.   Lieutenants learning to command an Infantry Platoon will first be taught how to fight with a battalion while a Captain/Major preparing to become an OC of an Armoured Squadron or an Artillery Battery will be trained first to fight with a CMBG.   By doing this, we enable the commander at any level to see the context in which his unit will operate in and how he can best ensure that every effort of his unit will be directed towards the effort of the higher headquarters (the commander's intent).

Thus, if the lowest level of Officer command (the platoon) begins with the Officer being taught how to fight with a battalion, then right from the start the Officer is trained in the operational art.   The tactical level in which a junior commander operates in does not let him carry out his duties in a vacuum.   Despite operating on a purely tactical level, he must be educated and trained to step outside of the box and see his unit and its role within the operational context.   This logic carries on as a commander progresses to higher and higher levels of command.

Even if the only Brigade or Division that a commander ever maneuvers is a paper tiger in high level/coalition wargames or training exercises, at least he is maintaining that ability for when the balloon goes up and Canada, against all odds and for some necessity, deploys a Brigade or    a larger formation (We all love to talk about how we are geared for mobilization).   Just because the current mission creep of Small-Scale Contingenices has forced us to break up units and formations into tactical units for "plug and play" global contributions does not eliminate the possibility of a Major Regional Contingency (or worse, a Global Conflict) landing in our lap.   By ensuring that our tactical commanders are trained and educated from the start to have a firm grasp on the operational art while our mid-level commanders are given the command and staff training to operate in formation level strategic planning and execution, we prepare our Officers to successfully fulfill their number one job, winning wars through the command of fighting soldiers, at any level required by the State.   To ignore this is the adverse of a professional Officer Corps, it is amateurism with the only consequence being that we are forced to re-invent the wheel, while having to pay the butchers bill in the process of doing so.   

A perfect example of this would be the US Army following the Civil War; along with demobilization it, for cultural reasons, completely eliminated any professional aspects of its Officer Corps which developed the path to victory over the Confederacy.   Reduced to small unit skirmishes in irregular conflicts with Native Americans, it was completely unprepared to fight the Spanish American War and World War I.   I can think of many examples in our own Military history that play out like this.   The opposite would be the interwar German Army that, despite crushing sanctions by Versailles, was able to preserve the professional outlook of its Officers and as such was prepared to to fight the next war when it came in 1939.

As they say, Failure to plan is planning to fail.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## pbi

Infanteer: there is much wisdom in what you say. I am of two minds on this matter, but I think that a balance can be struck.

I agree that our officer training, and PME need to be broader, earlier. I never understood why, under the old "OPDP" program, the unit on "War and the Military Profession" was studied LAST, after the one ones on pers admin, etc. It should have been first.I for one am a fan of examing the concept of a single Combat Branch whose officers are trained and developed as masters of  the application of all manner of combat effects and functions to achieving victory (however we define that at that moment). If the _AJ _ publishes my next scribble, you will see me expanding on this a bit. Oversimplified somewhat, it would be like making sure that every officer was a Combat Team Commander graduate.

On the other hand, it has taken us over a century of experience to learn that a junior officer must posess and demonstrate good soldier skills for a number of reasons. There is a danger in following the COA above in that if done badly we would end up with officers who were useless theoreticians only. My thought is that pursuing a progam similar to the BundesHeer, in which officers must serve in the ranks first, would probably take care of this requirement. Cheers.


----------



## Bartok5

Infanteer,

I won't dispute your "two level's up" training model at the present time, although I do think that it has problems in terms of training real leaders for real Canadian operations - both present and future.   Where I have a fundamental problem is in the base-line presumption that a purely academic post-secondary education somehow has any bearing whatsoever of a senior leader's ability to "evision the operational environment" and extrapolate to the "operational imperative".

Jeez, call me a "dummy".   I have grade 12 (B.C.) and a year of meaningless "every-ology" based on the available curricullum at (the time) at a recognized university.   It was precisely the abject meaningless of the university B.A. that let me to the conclusion that it was not worth my time, my parent's money, nor my (admittedly stunted) intellectual effort to continue pursuing a university education.   Granted, this occurred when such a degree was not necessary for enrolment nor advancement as a officer within the Canadian Army.   Part of the problem is that with the ever-reduced focus/influence of our Army in regards to coalition operations, I fail increasingly fail to see how such a university degree is somehow now suddenly relevant or substantiated.

On an somewhat unrelated note, PBI is off fulfilling the role of a Canadian Army LO to the CJTF HQ   for the Coalition "War on Terror" in Afghanistan.   But I have to ask....   Notwithstanding the fact that PBI is undoubtedly doing a fine job (perhaps by virtue of his education) in the Canadian LO role, the fact remains that as a national representative he is representing.....nothing.   We have no contribution to the true war-fighting coalition in Afghanistan.   Furthermore, we have nothing substantive to offer said coalition "waiting in the wings".   It was a (marginally) different story when the first such Canadian LO to CJTF HQ deployed as a representative of the Canadian JTFSWA HQ in 2002.   Back then, we actually had "troops in the fight" so to speak.   One could even argue that when we transitioned from a Coalition war-fighting role to the NATO-led "peace-support" operation, Canada still had a role to play, and therefore need for a voice within the "Warfighter HQ".   Yes, we were (by our own choosing) confined to securing Kabul for the benefit of President Karzai, but we were still fulfilling a promiinent and meaningful role which coincided with the Warfighting effort (eg.   legitimizing the interim government and setting the conditions for elections).   At that point we were leading the multinational ISAF contingent, and therefore had a justifiable reason to deal with the U.S.-led "war-fighters" on a daily basis for a whole host of reasons.

But TODAY we are relegated to providing a modest operational sub-unit of dubious value to the Kabul Multi-National Brigade.   We contribute a Recce Sqn with Coyote-based STA capability to the KMNF, with 2/3 of our personnel contribution committed to "sustainment" and "force protection" for both the logistics tail (Camp Julien) and the the meagre "force protection capability" afforded to the Recce Sqn.   Ask most who have actually witnessed the Coyote perform in an operational context, and they will tell you that it is largely a waste of time.   Around Kandahar, even with "billiard-table-like" terrain, the Coyotes were still next to useless in detecting or identifying "asymmetric" dismounted threats to the airfield.   In the "complex terrain" of Kabul, I would suggest that the Coyotes are of even more marginal (to nil) use.   The problem with the Coyote is that despite the much-heralded mast and MSTAR/cameras, etc, it can still only see line-of-sight.   So what does a Coyote see in the desert?   It monitors the very tops of sand-dunes or other prominent terrain features.   What it DOESN'T monitor are the innumerable dismounted approaches to the defended installation through the "low ground" under the radar or thermal surveillance.   For that, you either need INFANTRY sitting in targetted OPs to watch the NAIs, or INFANTRY conducting patrols with the local forces throughout the "Area of Influence" to deter and/or intercept threats.   In urban terrain, the Coyote is even more irrelevant - both as a surveillance platform as a means of conducting effective "area of influence" patrols.   They are the last resort for presence patrolling, CIMIC patrols, or HUMINT collection.   "Beast-mounted" Coyote crews cannot perform a meaningful CIMIC or HUMINT function.   They simply kill chickens and scare children.....   

I could go on and on about the abject uselessness of Coyote surveillance in an urban evironment, but I won't (for now).   Suffice it to say that they are achieiving manifestly less than an infantry-based sub-unit equipped with light patrol vehicles could accomplish....   But I digress.   After all, the current Coyote Sqn is a KMNB "Brigade ISTAR Asset"   Still, what these platforms hope to detect in terms of urban "suicide bombers" or folks planting and executing road-side IEDs is completely beyond my admittedly simple mind....

If we as a nation are not committing anything to the Coalition "War on Terrorism" in Afghanistan, and if all we are committing to the NATO-led Kabul Multi-National Brigade is a largely useless Coyote-based "Recce Sqn", then what do we hope to achieve by having a Canadian LO attached to the US CJTF that is actually prosecuting the war?   

The LO position was created 2 years ago when Canada had a (admittedly very small) "dog in the fight"   represented by 3 PPCLI.   Today however, we contribute nothing to the Coalition war-fighting effort.   Which leads me to believe that our LO position with the CJTF is little more than an "indulgent hold-over" from the time when we actually had a stake in the game.   

No offence to PBI's current role, but just who is it that our Canadian LO is currently "liaising" with in a meaningful manner, and on behalf of what?   Is it the nation of Canada as far as the war-fighting aspects of OEF are concerned?    Since we have zero physical contribution to that effort, I am highly doubtful.   Is the position merely "tolerated" because Canada "once ponied-up" and may someday do so again?   Or is there something that I am missing?   I am quite honestly curious, because I simply can't see why the Americans would continue to tolerate a senior Canadian LO at a time where our nation is contributing zero to the Coalition combat effort.   If OPSEC is involved, then I will cease and desist.   But I can't honestly see us playing "secret squirrel" in regards to the Coalition effort in Afghanistan at this pont......

Just some random thoughts - I would very much like to hear from PBI as somebody "in the know" just what it is that we think we (as a nation) are currently presuming to achieve in Afghanistan - both in terms of our "support" to KMNB and in the broader context of the Coalition fight outside of Kabul......

Colour me confused about our collective role and current contribution.......


----------



## pbi

Mark-feel better now?

If I was actually here as the Canadian LO to CJTF76, everything you said would be true, more or less. However, that's not my job. In fact, I have almost nothing to do with TFK except incidentally. I'm  filling a NATO staff position, not a Canadian national position.

My job here is to be the Land Operations LO from ISAF HQ to the HQ of CJTF76. The Canadian Recce Sqn (for better or worse) forms only a tiny part of what ISAF is doing. In fact it is two command levels removed from me, although I see them from time to time.

As ISAF's Land LO, I am qiute busy coordinating between two HQs of approximately Div size (the Coalition HQ being much moreso). If you can think of an issue that could come up between two such flanking HQs, particularly as we approach the decisive point of the Afghan Presidential Election next month, then I am probably in there somewhere. That's why it's such a great job: I cover a huge waterfront and I get pretty well the free run of the CJTF76 HQ. I love it.

It's sadly true that we've apparently decided to go the ISAF route instead of the OEF route: the US thinks quite highly of us and we would be very welcome to play. The days of LGen Hillier are fondly remembered here. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

> Where I have a fundamental problem is in the base-line presumption that a purely academic post-secondary education somehow has any bearing whatsoever of a senior leader's ability to "evision the operational environment" and extrapolate to the "operational imperative".



I completely agree with you; that is why I've consistently argued for a _military education_ throughout this debate.   It is the presentation of essential concepts of leadership and command in an academic setting, forcing the young officer to think and develop his own thoughts on the subject matter, as opposed to being told "this is the way we do things...", which in my opinion is just getting ready to fight the last war.   This type of learning would be incorporated with the other half of Officer training, the normal "practical" training of tactics and techniques in the field.

Anyways, everybody has dug into their respective fighting positions on the matter; I am posting another Officer's perspective on both issues we have covered in this thread (officer education and service in the ranks) for a new approach to the issues.   I found an interesting quote that effectively substantiates some of the complaints I've seen here (and agree with):
   


> *The fundamental weakness in the requirements outlined in the above study is that they automatically assume that those who graduate academic institutions with an undergraduate degree, be they military or civilian, will possess the requisite maturity, competence and leadership skills to qualify them to lead soldiers effectively and make the appropriate decisions even though these decisions may not be remotely relevant to their specific field of education or expertise.*   As will be outlined shortly, Martin van Creveld expresses the concern that various military organizations â Å“would surely question any system by which aspiring officers receive the bulk of their training in a special institution, separated from the enlisted men whom they will ultimately command.â ? Surprisingly enough, there are critical opinions surfacing within the civilian community that these officer candidates are only attending military training not so that they can proudly serve their country or have the honour of leading soldiers in operations, but â Å“for a cheap education and guaranteed job on graduation."



Going on this, the author gives a proposal for a system that draws officers from the ranks and proceeds to give them a variation of a military education; he uses the Israeli and the German Armies for models to go off of (which I have been proposing).   Interesting read, here is the link if anyone has the time to take a look:

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc30/exnh/datchko.htm


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I've met LCol Datchko, before he ever dreamed of being promoted so high.  I will admit that I must have misread him at the time.  I never imagined he had that much common sense.

Well written article, well argued.

Plus, I agree with him, which must prove that he is intelligent!


----------



## Bartok5

pbi said:
			
		

> Mark-feel better now?



As a matter of fact Sir, yes I do feel much better - thank-you very much for asking.     

My "relief" comes as the result of several factors, all of which are related to this forum and others.   First and foremost my "mental betterment" is a function of the opportunity to occasionally "vent" about issues pertaining to the "Army of Today" and the "Army of Tomorrow" which drive me to distraction because they make absolutely no rational sense to my (admittedly narrow and stunted) mind.   Second is the opportunity that such forums offer in which to discuss a broad range of issues pertaining to the Canadian Army and our collective "way ahead".   And finally is the fact that this forum (and others) offer a venue in which all ranks can discuss such matters with a reasonable expectation that they will not be subjected to formal repercussion nor sanction.   I will quite willingly concede that the latter may very well prove to be "wishful thinking", but for the time being I am comfortable here.   As I have (and will continue to be) on the SOCNET "Canada" Board.

Regarding my earlier post and your very welcome response, I can only thank you for having educated me as to your particular role in Afghanistan.   That portion of my earlier "rant" was based on the mistaken belief that you were continuing to fill a uniquely Canadian LO role which would by this point, be entirely superfluous.   Indeed, LCol Melanson filled such a role well after Canadian participation in the ground component of Operation Enduring Freedom had ended.   Although he apparently enjoyed a terrific time as a "national LO without portfolio", it all struck me as being rather pointless.   Indeed, I would question whether or not his presence was an outright insult to our closest ally.   I say this in the sense that we didn't have anyone on the ground, yet we persumed to expect access to sensitive information nonetheless.   That was rather presumptuous for a nation that ponied up for a mere 6 months of combat operations, and then proceeded to leave our allies hanging.....

In any case, I sincerely appreciate your having taken the time to define your "NATO-generic" staff officer role.   In the context of a non-nation-specific senior officer fulfilling the NATO ISAF/CJTF76 liaison function, I am sure that you have a very meaningful and busy role to play as the primary interface between those two HQs.   Quite frankly, given what I know to be your inherent ability and intellect, combined with the USMC Staff College background, I can't think of a more competent and able officer for the role.   Thanks for clarifying precisely what it is that you are doing over there.   

Suffice it to say that your role as a NATO ISAF LO to CJTF76 makes emminent sense.   I only wish that I could say the same about Canada's current role and force-structure in Afghanistan.....


----------



## pbi

Mark-thanks for that.

The ideal (although politically impossible) COA would be for us to be here in some significant capacity as part of OEF. The combat learning that is going on here by US forces is phenomenal: my first impressions are that the US Army will be changed, for the better, in many ways. I would warn my fellow Canadian soldiers to be prepared to drop some of our comfortable smug assumptions about our American friends: I have certainly had a few blown away already.

The second preferable COA would be to be the big dog on the block for ISAF, much as we wer but perhaps even stronger, including air and SF. We would, IMHO, do a 100% better job than what is going on now in ISAF. There are some frustrations that I won't bring up here but believe me I miss dealing with good Canadian staff types, work ethic, sense of urgency, concept of teamwork, etc.etc.etc. Sadly, this COA is out of our reach due to inability to sustain it.

Finally, IMHO the least desireable COA is what we are doing now. In truth, we are really "bit players" in a pond of 37 other troop contributing nations. This is NO WAY to denigrate our troops: far from it. It is just that we have gone from being the stars to being the peanut vendors. (I don't like to say that, and I sincerely do apologize to anybody in TFK who reads it, but it is my personal opinion about our policy NOT about our troops). 

On another note, like you I really enjoy Army.ca. In particular as you point out it is great to have all ranks, Reg and Res here, thrashing it out. We get an idea mix that would otherwise be difficult to achieve. I am saddened and disgusted by tales of senior types who have allegedly "spied" on Army.ca in order to "turn in" naughty people who have the temerity to think differently. Of course, I have also heard who one of those senior types allegedly was, and it does not surprise me he would do that.He has done a number of rather questionable things in his time.  Not enough to do, I suppose. Idle hands....etc.  Cheers.


----------



## muskrat89

Maybe next month, instead of sending spies, they'll send talent scouts....   

Great thread - thanks everybody....


----------



## Infanteer

I just went through the article by LtCol Datchko and he has two great points which apply to the topic a system of drawing Officer's from the ranks; the first point deals with   the first one is that

_"[Martin Van Crevald's] criticism is based on the fact that this type of system [that takes Officer's from the street] does not depend on any actual proven performance that would indicate a candidate's suitability to lead, but "the decision as to who will be allowed to enter officer training rests with examiners and interviewers rather than with people who know the candidate and are familiar with his or her character [ie: his commanders]._

he goes on to argue that

_"Of prime importance [of drawing Officer's from the ranks] is that the end-user has a direct role in the selection of candidates that have proven leadership abilities prior to the CF investing in their military and academic training as officers"_ 

and that the current methods such as DEO and ROTP _"completely overlook the fundamental building block of the officer: the natural leadership abilities that are inherent in our soldiers."_

I really recommend the article I posted above to get an insight on other military forces that draw their Officer Corps from the ranks, good reading.



As for the military education and its essential role in the profession of arms, I found a good article by an Royal Australian Air Force officer on the development of the operational art within the RAAF through the application of a military education.   Here is the article"

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc27/keir.doc

(If that doesn't work, you can find it here; look for an article by Squadron Leader R.J. Keir)
http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc27/index.html

This link is a treasure trove of good articles by military officers.

Anyways, I thought the article was really interesting because Squadron Leader Keir does a good job in underlining why a military education is important to the development of Air Force Officers.   As I have said before, too much technical training means the Air Force is in danger of becoming a group of glorified truckers with no real education on how to apply Air Power doctrine to the airframes that they fly so well.   SqL. Keir argues that _"Professional mastery is defined in *The Air Power Manuel* as 'the discipline of striving continually to achieve the most appropriate, effective, and efficient air power for Australia's security'."_ and that _"Professional mastery therefore relies on education and training in formal and informal environments, private study, and experience."_

Going off of SqL. Keir's definition of "Professional Mastery" we can see two distinct requirements; a rigorous military education provided in an academic setting (education in formal and informal environments and private study) and the more traditional "field training" of tactics and techniques that cover the fundamentals of command (training in a formal and informal environments and experience).

As SqL. Kier's develops his arguement for a "Center for Aerospace Warfare", he concludes that _"Too often the RAAF has had a technocratic or platform-centric view of aerospace power"_ and that _"Learning institutions are therefore the key to the intellectual strength of military organizations."_

I find myself agreeing with SqL. Kier's analysis.   If we ignore instilling a military education upon our Officer's we risk a degradation in the profession in the sense that we get too wrapped up in the technical nature of the profession of arms.  We learn all the techniques and can accomplish them according to the PAMs and how the checkboxes at the CTC require, but there is no implicit understanding of how those tactics and techniques apply to the larger framework of armed conflict.  Sure we will have Officers capable of pulling off Platoon attacks according to "the book", but the Officer Corps as a whole will not have much understanding beyond what is directly infront of it.   An Officer can pull an envelopment, but cannot understand how it developed or how it has succeeded historically or how it fits into a the larger framework of operations.   Military Genius will be able to do these things without any formal training, but we cannot wait and hope for genius when the situation requires it.

Anyways, just some more material and thoughts on the issue if anyone was still interested,
Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Pikache

Basically Infanteer's last post somewhat says what I'm about to say.

I believe first and most importantly that a school must not only teach a student the knowledge, but also how to use that knowledge to the benefit of the student.
Some students go to the university just for the knowledge but fails to apply the knowledge in his/her life. As far as I'm concerned, if you go to university for that shiny piece of paper which cost a lot of your time and money, you wasted a lot of valuable resources.

Going to university is probably easier way to get the knowledge and know how to use it. University is (supposedly) a place where the experts can teach you the stuff. You learn how to read, write, analyze, discuss, debate and all those wonderful skills that you need in an academic world in order to succeed there.

That does not mean self education does not have merit. If you can learn by yourself and know how to apply the knowledge, good for you. There are a lot of smart guys who learn by themselves and never went to university.

So I think university is a wonderful place because it is probably more quicker to expand a person's mind to knowledge and application of that knowledge because there are others and experts who are part of that system to help you out.

But do I believe a degree should be a pre-requisite to being an officer? No, because officer is foremost a leadership position and a degree does not teach a person how to lead.


----------



## Infanteer

> No, because officer is foremost a leadership position and a degree does not teach a person how to lead.



True, leadership is something that is inherent in the character of many soldiers.   The one article I linked has a good analysis of the Kaba system that the IDF uses to gain empirical data, supported by proven service in the ranks, to determine who will be the best leaders.   The article states that the Kaba system is pretty good at doing so.

However, the idea of a military education is not so much that an Officer learns how to lead, but rather that he gains a great appreciation on what he is to lead.   It is all great if the Officer is well-liked and is a good leader in the field, but if he lacks the knowledge of both the tactical and operational art and is given no foundation to adequately understand the theory and history behind leading troops into battle, all his good leadership is wasted when he blows his whistle and orders his soldiers over the trenchline.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, I went through all eight pages of this thread and I must say that I am impressed with the level of input of soldiers from all levels of experience.

Now, the question remains, has anybody's views or opinions changed from this little "learning experience?"


----------



## Michael OLeary

TomGledhill, please read the entire thread before commenting on the subject line.


----------



## Infanteer

You are correct Michael.  University, like most endeavours, can only give people what they put into it.  Unfortunately, the standards have slid to the point where one can put next to nothing into it and can gain the same degree as someone who busts their butt and moves onto Graduate work.

Essentials to a military education would be small class sizes, various forms of evaluation (tactical exercises, written work, proposals and debates), and a rigorous comprehensive exam at the end.  The bar would be set high so as to ensure that only the best succeed.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, I've been contemplating over this discussion for a bit and I've thought of a fresh approach to looking at both topics (service in the ranks/PSE).   In a recent article I read, there contained the following quote with regards to Officer training.

_"A French officer, writing immediately after France's defeat in 1940, lamented that in French military schools, "The teaching was more concerned with developing knowledge than exercising judgement."_

I think this may offer a key to helping to ensure that our Officer Corps occupies the right side of the bell curve and leads to a higher degree of professionalism within the Forces as a whole.

In essence, when we are trying to determine who the best leaders are, we are trying to find one key thing; Character.   It is fundamental to the abilities of all leaders, from the veteran section commander to the green Lieutenant to the brilliant General.   As Michael O'Leary's sigline explains

_Leadership is the practical application of character. -   R.E. Meinertzhagen_

I would consider all the aspects that we would consider essential to a good leader as elements of strong character (sound judgement, as the French Officer above referred to, would be one of those elements).   

The Canadian Forces policy that all Officer's will have a Post-Secondary Degree to make it to senior ranks, although seemingly guided by good intentions, is fundamentally unsound because it assumes that all people who have went through university possess the good character and sound judgement required of a professional Officer.   This is unfair to degree-less Officers who have shown to be excellent commanders but commissioned prior to the policy and it is unfair for soldiers who are given junior leaders whos sole claim to their rank is through their education.   In essence, the policy of   attempting to enforce a PSE on all officers may increase the level of knowledge possessed by the Officer Corps, but it does nothing to look at the development of the level of professionalism and the strengthening of the character of our leadership (which I believe the purpose of the policy is intended to do).   To state it bluntly, education does not necessarily equal intelligence or sound character and judgement.

Although a fair portion of young officer's possess the requisite character abilities to turn them into competent leaders, many fail to reach the bar, but manage to bumble on due to the fact that they are "intellectually qualified".   In essence, our Officer Selection is a crap shoot.   We've seen historical examples of what happens when we utilize "crap-shoot" techniques (educational, political, social standing) to determine where the officers should come from; both the Canadian and American Armies had to "clean house" within their Officer Corps in WWII to clear the cobwebs of amateurism.   Prussia had to do the same after being humiliated at Jena and Auerstedt by Napoleon while the British were late to recognize that selling commissions didn't earn you the best of leaders.

How is our selection system a crap shoot?   In my opinion, the two key programs of Direct Entry Officer (DEO) and Regular Officer Training Program (ROTP) do not look at anything concrete to determine if the candidate is suitable as a military leader (or suitable for military service at all).   Both DEO candidates sent directly to Officer Training and ROTP candidates sent to the RMC are assessed on civilian aspects which may not be the best determinants of the character required of a combat leader.   Their educational background (highschool or university) is looked at, as well as volunteer or community programs, work history.   These are largely irrelevant to the profession of arms; any flake can get his Post Secondary Education if he applies himself and most aspects of civilian achievement, although possibly illuminating certain character traits of the applicant, do nothing to show us how these people handle themselves under the intense stress of combat.

There are "character references", but these are very subjective; I can find many people who would say "Gee, Infanteer is a great guy".   As well, I highly doubt that the "character references" for most applicants   indicate that "Mr Bloggins was an outstanding employee, as such, I am sure that he will prove to be an excellent leader of troops in battle."
There is an interview, but I believe this can only go skin deep.   Applicants can simply lie or bluff, but what for.   They aren't expected to display to their interviewer that they are a Rommel or a Montgomery in waiting, they just need to show that they know what they are getting into and have rudimentary understandings of responsibility.   As well, applicants undergo such a change in personality when they are indoctrinated into a military institution that what they say to please the recruiter may be totally irrelevant after a civilian has been transformed into a soldier.

Finally, our Officer's must make it through their "Phase training".   I think this is probably the "best" determinant of character we currently us in the fact that cadets who cannot hack the rigors field conditions simply don't make it.   However, this can be a slippery form of character evaluation as well.   Standards change, and when the military is really hurting for troops, standards may decline.   As well, Phase Training, conducted in the traditional military environment, is largely a "monkey see, monkey do" format.   Students are taught doctrine and go into the field and are evaluated (by checking off the boxes) on whether they can adhere to doctrine.   This is of limited value in a character evaluation (William Caley eventually made it through this sort of training) and it is largely a set of tactics and techniques; as we've discussed before, being able to conduct a right flanking attack does not make an officer.

All in all, I think the method we use is a crap shoot.   Sure, you're going to get excellent leaders, but your also going to have unsuitable candidates squeak through and move up the chain.   Young Lieutenants arrive at their units essentially as "unknown quantities" ; an aspect that can be contained in peacetime through effective management by SNCO's and senior Officers, but can be disastrous prior to or during deployment (look at the problems with US Officer's in Vietnam).   The efforts of all your excellent leaders can be for nothing if unsuitable, unprofessional officers are able to occupy positions within the C-of-C during peacetime.   The level of professionalism, the level that it is prepared to fight and win battles, begins to decline.

The solution?   I would argue that we need to have better, objective tests of the character traits of the men and women that will be commissioned as Officers in the profession of arms.   The character of our NCO's is largely determined by years of good service as a soldier; essentially, they are a "known quantity".   The goal of utilizing multiple, objective means of analysing the character of our potential officers is to ensure that on a whole, the quality of the "clay" with which the training establishment is provided with is of a much finer grade; with the result being a higher degree of professionalism within the Officer Corps as a whole.

My initial proposal of how we do this takes much from what we've discussed in this thread.

Potential Officer's will be selected from the ranks determined on two things; exemplary service as a soldier and the passing of a selection board that further analyses the abilities of the solider in question.

The requirement of exemplary service in the ranks allows us to ensure that the soldier is a "known quantity".   He is respected by his peers and has the recommendation of his leaders.   He has shown himself to be a competant soldier and eager to show initiative and accept responsibility.   Essentially, the Officer's and SNCO's are saying that "yes, we want this soldier to be one of our leaders."   This has the added benefit that suitability for leadership is determined by leaders who have dealt with the soldier and are willing to lead with him as opposed to leaders being selected by Personal Officers and Recruiters who have their own priorities which may or may not be related to superior combat performance.   Leaders will not elect one who has shirked from duties, shown himself to be lazy, or acted as a selfish individual to be one of their own (I've seen Officer's get through the system with all these traits).   Service in the ranks can act as an essential "filter" in the Officer Selection Process.

The requirement of a selection board that further analyses the abilities of the potential officer is the second step.   Once the soldier has been put forth by his commanders as a good candidate, a process that seeks to determine the character of the potential officer is initiated.   From what I've read, the Israeli _Kaba_ system is one method used to do so.   The selection board would use a battery of tests and interviews in an attempt to develop an objective, qualitative assessment of the solder.   If he meets the standards here, he is accepted as a Officer Cadet and is sent to the RMC.   Here is the article previously linked that has a good overview of the Israeli and German methods of Officer selection which focus on character.

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc30/exnh/datchko.htm

The RMC serves to develop the new Cadet into a thinking fighter.   It grounds the Cadet with a solid military education.   As the quote by the French Officer above indicates, the purpose of the military education is not to load the Cadet up with detailed knowledge (as a more conventional PSE might), but to provide him with a "funnel" with which to apply sound judgement that it grounded in a professional education.   In a sense, the sound character of the cadet is tended to with a military education so as to produce a thoughtful and proficient professional Officer, one who equally at home with staff duties, training and educating, or command in battle.

Throughout this process, we cannot compromise standards.   We must ensure that selection of officers is based on external needs (the need for only the best candidates who can lead our soldiers into battle) as opposed to internal needs (the need for more officers to fill out TO&E).   When a number of required Officer's is fielded to regiments, they can only put forward those who have met the standards described above.   There can be no tolerance for admitting an unacceptable product for the sake of filling up "empty hats"; these positions can be filled by NCO's (requiring a development of our NCO Corps, a topic I know PBI has thoughts on) and by "double hatting" existing officers if required.   We must do as Martin Van Crevald points out and possess a _"readiness to accept a shortage of officers rather than to compromise in regard to their quality."_

I think a good analogy would be comparing a potential officer to a seed.   You sort through the seeds to determine which will be the strongest one, which will contain the characteristics you are looking for (evaluation of character).   After you have planted it (service in ranks), you tend to it with water in order to allow it to grow into a sapling (military education).   The water (education) is required to release the talents of the seed and to develop and infuse it with the essence of the art of war.   When it is a sapling, it is tended to by capable gardeners (the young Lt's watchful SNCO's and Officers) who ensure it develops into fully grown tree.


Well, that's about all this Corporal has to say for now   .   I'd be interested to hear some criticism or thoughts on this as well as other opinions on the matter of character and its relation to leadership.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## pbi

After some thought, I'll now cease fire and unload. I agree with this concept, not least because through much intellectual discourse, it has arrived back at something I originally suggested and which I believe in.

As the originator of this thread, I'd like to thank all who put so much thought and passion into what they had to say. The qualities of army.ca have been exemplified here. Cheers.


----------



## pbi

zerhash said:
			
		

> officer is a good job if youre into admin
> 
> you will go through royal military college and have a well rounded education
> 
> id still recomend going through the ranks just because u learn more and see what the engineers are all about
> 
> you can start when you are 16 in the reserves. it lets you see what the army is about and lets you study while in the army.



I'm an officer and I hate admin(although I see its importance). Truth be told, most "admin" work in the Army is done by WOs/NCOs. Officers do staff work, which is not the same as "admin". Also, not all officers go through RMC-many get their degrees in civilian universities under ROTP or as officers in the Reserve, and a smaller number either Commission From The Ranks (CFR) or do UTPNCM.


----------



## zerhash

does the CFR work in the Regs?


----------



## pbi

zerhash said:
			
		

> does the CFR work in the Regs?



Yes: CFR is normally applied to those at the rank of Sgt and above who are deemed suitable. They will be commissioned at a rank ranging from Lt to Capt, depending on a case-by-case assessment of their rank, etc. CFR (as originally conceived) did not envision sending the officer to get a degree, primarily because the NCO/WO was being commissioned for their technical knowledge (although I have seen it done "_just to keep 'em around_" IMHO the wrong reason to commission somebody).

Do not confuse CFR with UTPNCM (University Training Plan for Non Commissioned Members): UTPNCM is directed at MCpl and below who are selected as showing potential to become commissioned leaders in their MOC. It is not a way to get a free degree: the degree is a secondary effect to the production of an officer.

Cheers.


----------



## Ninja9186

man im right now in that situation i just finnished highschool and will be joining up in january im goin in as a bumb recruit, i also love the field work and all that stuff, i cant stand the thiought of paperwork. but my situation is a little different im gonna go to university after my three years are up and ive got a family business waiting for me. look at your situation and remember youve got to one day support a wife and kids.


----------



## zerhash

so when going CFR does it limit your officer trades? i know one officer who went from MWO infanteer to Capt. Log

Ninja, u gotta do what you gotta do... if you are considering going officer after 3 years your NCO's that you previously worked with will most likely have a problem with that.

As for going in as a bumb recruit there is nothing wrong with that. if it werent for us bums there would be no army... someones gotta do the ass kicking

Spr. Richmond


----------



## pbi

What limits your suitability for specific officer MOCs is not the fact you are a CFR, but rather your actual qualifications for that MOC. I am not aware of any Offr MOC that will not take CFRs, but a number of Officer MOCs will not take applicants who lack the technical or academic qualifications.

Cheers.


----------



## zerhash

engineers id imagine wouldnt take CFR without an appropriate degree


----------



## pbi

zerhash said:
			
		

> engineers id imagine wouldnt take CFR without an appropriate degree



I think so, for two reasons: a) RegF Engr Offrs normally require an Engineering degree; and b) normally all officers today are required to have degrees (although perhaps exceptions can be made for CFRs in some MOCs.

Cheers.


----------



## RDA

pbi said:
			
		

> ... Officers do staff work, which is not the same as "admin".



pbi:   What is considered "staff work"?   I realise that there is probably no single all-encompassing answer, but could you give a brief example or two of tasks or roles that fall under the "staff work" umbrella?   Thank you in advance for sharing your wisdom!


----------



## pbi

I'll try to distinguish the two, as I see them:

Admin, to me, includes things such as basic personnel transactions, maintaining personnel records, ordering, handling and issuing supplies; ordering and coordinating transport, arranging for rations and quarters, handling mail and documents and all other routine support functions at unit and sub-unit level. To the greater extent, this is the work of NCOs and WOs.

Staff work, on the other hand, concerns itself mainly with the development, issue and coordination of operational plans and orders and instructions for major exercises, (as well as all the support issues that go with these), the development of policy and direction, the preparation of briefs and other decision support documents for higher commanders, as well as the review and preparation of major documents for signature by commanders. This type of work is most commonly done by officers although more senior grades of WO are frequently involved at the initial level.

There is of course some overlap between the two, especially at unit HQ level, but that is the division that I am familiar with.

Cheers.


----------



## McG

zerhash said:
			
		

> engineers id imagine wouldnt take CFR without an appropriate degree


An Engr Sr NCO can CFR as an Engr.  There is even a special CFR course so they don't have to sit in on Ph IV classes.


----------



## aesop081

McG said:
			
		

> An Engr Sr NCO can CFR as an Engr.   There is even a special CFR course so they don't have to sit in on Ph IV classes.



That is correct.  I have taught a few of those.  They take some classes with reserve ICT courses ( if they are QL6B if not they have to do a complete PH IV)


----------



## CrimsonSeil

Does anyone have the feeling of being a NCM for your whole career. Do you ever feel you want to be a worker and not a planner. I know being a officer is very desireable and is also beneficial but I feel like i dont really want to be an officer. What do you guys think.

Edit: Forgot to say I'm not in the CF yet so I probably wont know how it feels =P


----------



## MikeM

All depends on what you want to do.

At this point in time, I do not wish to be an officer, however, I may want to sometime in the future. Starting off as an NCM gives you invaluable experience and you still have the option to become in officer in the future (as long as you have the education requirements met). If you want to be a worker to start (like most jobs), then go for NCM.


----------



## zerhash

i think as an mp in the regs you need civi quals like crim. you may need to get your degree first. i could be wrong, anybody know for sure?

[Heresay (at least you admitted it as such).  Please locate the answer instead of offering conjecture.  Here is the link for NCM requirements]

http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/army/jobs_e.aspx

as for the reserves you dont need any quals


----------



## Bill Smy

Sound familiar?

The Scotsman, 27 November 2004

THE British Army is employing hundreds of officers that it does not need at a time when the military's top brass insists that Scotland's infantry regiments need to be amalgamated to save money, The Scotsman can reveal. 

The case for the loss of one Scottish battalion has been argued by the Ministry of Defence on the grounds of recruiting shortfalls. But new government figures show that the MoD argument is fatally flawed. 

The cost of the 370 surplus officers in the army is estimated to be more than  £10 million a year, and could top  £20 million. The cost of maintaining a regiment for 12 months is approximately  £17 million. 

Last night, a spokesman for the Save the Scottish Regiments campaign said there were "too many chiefs and not enough indians" and promised to fight on to the bitter end to reverse the decisions. 

"The gloves are off now - if this Labour government think they have seen the campaign at it's maximum strength they are mistaken," he said. "Stabbing Scotland's soldiers in the back while they carry out work on behalf of the government and country is what is really happening here." 

The Scotsman has also learned that under the Ministry of Defence plans, the Black Watch and the other threatened Scottish regiments will lose their individual identities as early as November next year. From that point on, unless political pressure forces the government into an unlikely climbdown, they will be known as the Royal Regiment of Scotland. 

As of 1 October this year, the army had 370 more officers than its own stated requirements - 14,080 instead of the 13,710 it should have on its books. Meanwhile, the Scottish Division [made up of the Scottish infantry regiments] is short of 328 men and the army as a whole is short of 3,320 other ranks - 89,700 instead of the 93,020 it should have. 

The British Army has five generals on its books, 12 lieutenant-generals, 46 major generals, 170 brigadiers, 590 colonels and 1,740 lieutenant-colonels. Lt-Col James Cowan, the commanding officer of the Black Watch, is one of only a handful of lieutenant-colonels in front line postings; many of the others, and the majority of the more senior officers, are employed in MoD desk jobs. 

The MoD claimed that its recruitment and staffing figures did not tell the whole story. A spokesman said: "All of these officers have important roles to play within the armed forces. It is not the case that they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs." 

But restricted army papers reveal even more puzzling anomalies. General Sir Mike Jackson, Britain's most senior soldier, has argued that Scotland cannot recruit enough soldiers to man its existing six regiments. "If these regiments are so precious, why are not more young Scotsmen signing up? Why are the Royal Scots having to recruit Fijians?" he said in a recent interview. 

Gen Jackson has argued that larger regiments - the so-called super-regiments - suffer fewer recruiting problems, but the army's own figures tell a different story. 

His own Parachute Regiment - a model for the new army structure - is at present more reliant on foreign and Commonwealth soldiers than the combined Scottish regiments, using on average 37 such soldiers in a battalion compared to 35 in the Scottish regiments. 

The Paras are not over-recruited either: 3 Para is short of 30, the same shortfall as the Black Watch. 

However, it is when the figures for foreign and Commonwealth soldiers are stripped out of the existing super-regiments that the full scale of their problems is revealed. The Royal Green Jackets, with two battalions, use a total of 191 such soldiers. The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, also with two battalions, uses 207. The entire Scottish Division, with six regiments, uses just 208. 

But senior army officers, and the MoD, are refusing to contemplate backing down on their plans to restructure the army in Scotland and to get rid of one entire Scottish battalion. 

Yesterday an MoD spokesman said: "The issue of foreign and Commonwealth soldiers is neither here nor there as to the future of the battalions." 

He said it was up to the individual soldiers which regiments they joined: "They are not being artificially boosted by foreign and Commonwealth soldiers," he said. 

Soldiers serving with the Black Watch at Camp Dogwood in Iraq yesterday described the decision as a kick in the teeth. "I feel terrible that the regiment is coming to an end," said 23-year-old Lee Beaton, from Dundee. "We are all working hard and this is how we are rewarded." 

Geoff Hoon will announce the cuts on 16 December, ten days after the Army Board meets to finalise its recommendations. Colonel commandants of the Scottish regiments have been invited to the meeting to argue their individual cases, but there appears to be little chance of a change of heart. 

The first three of four infantry battalions to disappear completely from the army will go by April 2007, with the final disbandment or amalgamation pencilled in for the following April. The Royal Scots and King's Own Scottish Borderers - which are to be merged into a single battalion - will have to wait until Mr Hoon's announcement to discover when the axe will fall on them.


----------



## George Wallace

Don't you really think that this is a problem that is systemic in Western Society?  We don't have to go far to experience the problems.  Just look at some of the inquiries made on this site.  What proportion of "young Recruits" today are asking questions on how they can become Officers, probably with aspirations of becoming CDS someday, as compared to those who just want to join as an OR?

GW


----------



## Big Foot

I definetly agree with George on this one, not so as to say "screw you" to anyone who wants to become officers, but because it seems there are getting to be too many chiefs in the military and not enough indians. If these people are serious about joining the military, then they need to look at all options, especially at NCM positions. As I keep hearing, the officers get all the prasie, but they also get all the shit if something goes wrong. Officership brings with it a great deal of responsibility. I go to RMC and I have absolutely no desire to ever make it above the rank of LCol. Above that, it gets far too political, and you're almost always a desk jockey. If you want to join the army and want to see the world, the best way to go would be NCM. THis coming from an RMC officer cadet...


----------



## lostmuskrat

I'm currently in the recruiting process trying to enter the CF as an Officer Cadet.  I chose to apply as an officer because I already have my BA, and because that's the way the regiment's recruiting Sgt. preferred it.  I would just as happily apply for NCM, but the regiment seems to be hard pressed to find people to fill their officer slots.  It was amazing how the recruiter's face lit up when I said I qualified for DEO.  "My, and you have a friend who wants to apply too, eh?"
I'd be just as happy as a Lt. as a Lt. Col., for me it's more a this-is-what-my-unit-needs-so-rise-to-the-occasion-already.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The only place where excessive middle management bureaucracy has been replaced is private businesses where shareholders have the ability to hold the executive accountable for specific measureables.

In the case of corporation, shareholders demand earnings per share which drive investment for efficiencies and regular restructuring of internal personnel which has eliminated multiple layers of middle management and as such lowered the number of strata between the top decisionmakers and the front-line personnel.

Government bureaucracies on the other hand don't appear to have any internal perogaitve to become more efficient and downsize that middle management.   On the contrary I would argue that their primary objective is preserving the existing management structures and expanding it where possible.



Matthew     ???


----------



## dglad

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Government bureaucracies on the other hand don't appear to have any internal perogaitve to become more efficient and downsize that middle management.   On the contrary I would argue that their primary objective is preserving the existing management structures and expanding it where possible.



Strictly speaking, not quite true.  I work for the provincial government in Ontario; there is enormous pressure to "flatten" the organization by eliminating layers of management.  The rationale is the customer i.e. the taxpayer, for most service-delivery parts of the government, really doesn't care what happens "behind the counter", as long as the "counter" delivers the services he/she wants.  In that sense, the taxpayers are playing the role of shareholders in a corporation.  The government of Ontario now recognizes 3-4 layers of management--senior managment, which includes Assistant Deputy Ministers and Directors, and one, and perhaps two levels of straight "management".  And that's it.

The military doesn't have quite the same imperative, so I'm more inclined to agree with you in its case.  There really aren't "customers" receiving direct service or filling the role of shareholders, in the same sense (yes, the taxpayers of Canada are the army's shareholders, but they don't generally have the same direct interaction with the armed forces).  So there's a lack of general accountability; to the average Canadian, the CF is a "black box" that consumes resources, and in turn provides a service, but not in a way that the typical taxpayer understands in a detailed way.  That's probably both a benefit and a weakness.  So, there's no real check and balance on the bureaucratic growth of the military (and various other government departments, incidentally).


----------



## a_majoor

Without trying to be insulting to officers or potential officer candidates, I would suggest the best way to check this "top heavy" progression would be to insist that all officers are CFRs. This would limit the pool of potential officers, ensure they are proportional to the branches and regiments they represent and also ensure they have some real world experience to guide them.

Arguments like "they will be too old/ have to drop out for 3 years to get degrees" etc. are technicalities which can be managed with some planning and imagination.

As to eliminating the existing overage, the best way it could be managed in the CF would be to make the CDS a Lt Gen appointment, which would have a knock down effect on subordinate staffs. I would be interested to see calculations of the number of officer positions this could effect.


----------



## dglad

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Without trying to be insulting to officers or potential officer candidates, I would suggest the best way to check this "top heavy" progression would be to insist that all officers are CFRs. This would limit the pool of potential officers, ensure they are proportional to the branches and regiments they represent and also ensure they have some real world experience to guide them.



This is an interesting and, in my experience, much bandied-about argument.   I tend to agree, actually.   However, I would be concerned about the effect this would have on the rate at which we could produce officers.   This might seem an odd comment; the whole point is to decrease the number of officers, I know.   However, we would have to carefully determine the effect on our rate of officer production, to ensure that we don't overcompensate and leave ourselves with a leadership shortage at some future point, which would then take time to sort out.   This is the situation we now face with Jr NCOs, thanks to well-intended but problematic changes to the way we train soldiers during their first 3-5 or so years (i.e. what we now call DPs 1 and 2). 



> As to eliminating the existing overage, the best way it could be managed in the CF would be to make the CDS a Lt Gen appointment, which would have a knock down effect on subordinate staffs. I would be interested to see calculations of the number of officer positions this could effect.



I have somewhat more difficulty with this one.   Reducing our CDS to a 3-star will make him the equivalent of the commander of a component or a senior staff officer in many other militaries, some of whom are no larger and, in fact, may be smaller than ours.   This will affect the "standing" of Canada in global military matters (all right, stop laughing...I'm making a serious point here).   Believe it or not, Canada is still widely respected for its military acumen and contributions; this may have more to do with the quality and capabilties of our soldiers than higher-level factors we all know and love, but it is there.   So our CDS comes to the multinational table as a four-star, which gives him a degree of standing he wouldn't otherwise have (I have no doubt, as an aside, that any decent CDS would acknowledge a significant amount of that standing comes from him riding on the shoulders of Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen, and their accomplishments, but again, it's there).

I would rather see a more carefully managed officer development system in place, with higher standards and, MUCH more significantly, more accountability.   I'm afraid that for much of the military, the RCR motto of "Never pass a fault" are just nice-sounding words, with the result that we have too many personnel (officers and NCMs) advancing to levels they shouldn't.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some armies have (had, anyway) an officer 'aspirant' system which involves a year or two of service in the most junior ranks before officer training, per se, begins.

There are many and varied (and often contradictory) arguments in favour of such a system: some proponents believe it is essential to drive out the old, _ancien régime_ style system in which officers were from the aristocracy and had no interest - nor any need to have an interest - in the goings on in the rank and file; others suggest that good officers need some rank and file experience in order to be good leaders.

I find no convincing merit, none whatsoever, in any of the arguments.   Some, many of the officers I knew who went through such a system were first rate men - many others were _dumpkopfs_ - in almost the exact same proportions I suggest as e.g. American, British and Canadian officers, most of whom came up through an _officer only_ recruiting, education and training system.

Many armies are top heavy - principally because governments (bureaucrats) make it too hard to thin out the ranks with early, un-penalized retirements and serving officers have little incentive to leave, leaving behind decent (not great) pay and benefits just to help balance the books.   Some senior officers are happy to have a few too many lieutenant colonels and colonels - especially if they are fairly young - to serve as a base for sudden, emergency expansion: filling territorial/militia CO and formation commander slots, for example.   In at least one country it was (but I suspect no longer is) possible to 'delete' officers from the lists by 'loaning' them to the public service - as executive; many of the most senior public servants liked military officers because of their training and experience.

We need to recruit tough, smart, enthusiastic young men and women for *all* of the army; officers are no less important than ORs.   Our recruiting, selection, education and training programmes for officers should be rigorous - ensuring that we get the right people and prepare them well for an honourable challenging and sometimes deadly _*profession.*_

There is no doubt in my mind that lieutenant general is the right (highest possible) rank for our CDS.   I would argue that we need three, only three, 'hard' LGens: CDS, DCinC NORAD and CANMILREP NATO.   *All* the other LGen position should be downgraded to MGen and so on.   I am not concerned with 'standing' - my experience when our CGS was a LGen was that he was treated with respect and as an equal by his American and British four star counterparts.   Some of our allies roll their eyes a bit these days when they see a Canadian LGen whose 'command' experience is limited to a small, non-combat ready brigade.

Reducing the rank levels, however, is a lot harder than it looks because the military pay and benefits system is a civilianized bugger's muddle - based on an ill considered (but oh so welcome at the time!) system of _benchmarking_.   I would agree with some, limited, _benchmarking_; *for example*: CDS = middle range deputy minister; LCol = 1st level civil service executive/director, most senior CWO (technical) ââ€°Â¤ lowest paid LCol, trained private ââ€°Â¥ StatsCan's low income cut off for a medium sized city; no _performance pay_ etc - real 'steps' between each rank, etc.   Example only - not a proposal!

There is a fine balance between keeping the peacetime military leadership young enough to withstand the rigors of battle and retaining enough experienced people to plan and teach etc.   There is another problem in, especially the Canadian and American military: every time the press or parliament coughs we establish a director general something-or-other to ensure that this, that or the other does not happen again.   I have yet to meet a DG who didn't empire build - several lieutenant colonels are the norm after a year or two. I am prepared to state, despite no having been near the place for years and years, that we could cut NDHQ by another 15% - eliminating whole branches - and have no measurable impact on operations, administration or policy: we would just save lots and lots of money.

All that to say: don't blame the officers for systemic inefficiency, and the production of good officers is dependent, mainly, on how well they are recruited and trained *as officers*rather than service in the ranks.


----------



## a_majoor

I agree with most of your points ROJ, but CFR does make the production of officers proportional to the size of the various branches/corps/regiments etc. Surplus officers sloshing around the system would eventually be squeezed out, the CDS knock down would eliminate their "jobs" in the various HQ's and directorates, while the CFR pool officer candidates will be filling the slots in the units/branches.

The argument about having the "right" number of officers can be answered by looking at WWII Germany. No matter how desperate the situation became, the academy never lowered it's standards and the Wermacht fought on under the leadership of the NCO corps. Even the Staff schools would not have full classes, if enough candidates who met the standard could not be found. The Genman army did not run out of officers, but men, equipment and fuel...Having a Left Out Of Battle (LOOB) pool for sudden expansion is a good idea, but must be managed rigorously, I am sure we have enough LOOB officers right now to outfit at least a traditional division.

This is related to arguments on other threads, but the large bureaucracies we have now slow down the decision making process, making nonsense out of so much of the promise of the "RMA". A simple and telling example can be found in the book Blackhawk Down; there was a PC-3 Orion orbiting over Mogadishu with a panoramic view of the entire AOR. By the time the Orion's instructions filtered down through the various levels to the ground convoy, the unfortunate soldiers had already driven past the intersections they were supposed to turn down.

If we don't buy into the idea that CFR is the right way to go, my next offer would be something like SAS selection: put all officer candidates through a very rigorous "Outward Bound" type program for a summer and only make the offer and RMC positions available to those who have the combination of fortitude, teamwork and smarts to pass.


----------



## Acorn

I think a_majoor has a point, given the increased professionalization of the NCO corps, however I don't think it's necessary or desirable to insist on an all-CFR officer corps.

If there is something that should be addressed it is the entry age of recruits for either officer or NCM. 

I also agree on the downgrading of ranks. As ROJ pointed out, Allies will regard our people with the respect of the position, not the braid. I think if there is a problem, it's more one of the LGen "Bob" (the NATO milrep) talking to the LGen "Alain" (who is CDS) as an equal. Such a disagreement can be sorted by clearly defining the autority and chain of command.

Acorn


----------



## Long in the tooth

My dark talent is that I rub people the wrong way.   That said, my position is that the CDS and 63 (+/-) other generals are not overpaid or overranked.   Many have the equivalent of graduate and post graduate degrees and decades of experience.   Some are so good that on retirement they roll over to $250k +++ jobs in the civy sector.   In terms of sheer survival, we must have external consistency in terms of renumeration.

As a young soldier I got laughs by joking "I'm from Div/Bde staff and I'm here to help you".   At present I do work for a staff or 'brain trust' as it were.   There are LCols with M Eng, Majs with B Eng and MBA.   These are the people that study problems, make policy and listen to peoples' concerns.   Surprisingly, I don't see surplus officers 'sloshing around'.   I see educated and dedicated people who are actually the glue that holds our military together.

For those enamored of the German example, Friederich Von Paulus was Oberquartermaster I in 1940.   Look at his performance.

To reiterate my MTP - we have no economies of scale.   With a 40% increase in funding we could almost double our defence capability.   Don't blame the officers/NCOs in NDHQ, as they are only serving the mandate dictated by the politicians.   Go right to the source.


----------



## a_majoor

While I certainly don't doubt there are a lot of very talented and dedicated people in high positions, the "tooth to tail" and "Leader to Led" ratios seem really out of whack. How can we be spending 9+ billion a year and only have @5000 infantrymen? And is there really a correlation between rank and ability? I am a Sergeant operating in the G6 cell in a reserve brigade (one of only three members), yet I make policies which affect the Bde, take part in managing a large fraction of the Bde's internal budget, and have come up with ideas which we managed to push up the rope to Area...I really could use a clerk to assist me, rather than another Captain, Major or LCol.

A smaller. flatter officer corps will have a faster decision cycle, and we can only hope people like Von Paulus (or Rommel for that matter) can be quickly identified early in their careers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> I am a Sergeant operating in the G6 cell in a reserve brigade (one of only three members), yet I make policies which affect the Bde,



Umm, I really hope that you meant to say that "you make policy recommendations to your brigade commander, who subsequently sets brigade policy".   It may seem like semantics, but I believe that the distinction is vital. If not you are, however well intentioned, usurping your commander's legal authority to command.


----------



## bossi

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> My dark talent is that I rub people the wrong way.



Thanks - I needed a good chuckle this morning ...
And, your post was excellent, too (not that my opinion matters ... chuckle!)

Yup - the Army has this suicidal tendency to automatically revert to "us and them" mentality.
Ironic, since "Gung Ho" actually means "unity of effort", NOT "blade buddy before he blades you" ...


----------



## lostmuskrat

I will soon be sworn in as an Officer Cadet (reserve) this Thursday.  I have no previous military experience, only a little management experience, and I would have happily joined as an NCM before being CFR  (I'm actually a little disappointed that I won't).  I'd like to make a point, and please don't take offense and please keep in mind my gross inexperience.  Also, this post expands the topic a bit.  If I'm highjacking the thread, I'm sorry.  If I've wasted your time repeating what you distinguished people have already said, I'm sorry.

I don't doubt that there are many empires in NDHQ (and elsewhere) that should be eliminated and the staff used to a better purpose elsewhere.  This solves the 'officer glut' nicely, but it does not solve the HR problems of the CF as a whole.  Requiring all junior officers to be CFR is not a bad idea at all, it may (or may not) solve the problems of the Reg. Army, but I see how it could make it even harder for Reserve units to get the junior leaders they need.

There are two (arguably many more) recruiting systems in the CF, Regular and Reserve.  The "Regular" system selects people for the needs of each regular branch of the service.  The "Reserve" system selects people for the needs of particular units.  I decided to go the officer rather than the NCM route because the regiment's recruiting  Sgt. asked me to.  He was looking towards the needs of the regiment only - the odds that I might 'go regular' or become a desk jockey at some point in the far future were irrelevant - he needs qualified junior officers a year from now more than he needs qulaified NCMs.

The different solutions to the 'officer glut' presented in this thread are:
-All officers in the CF (Army?) must be CFR.
-Make the CDS a Lt. General
Both are legitimate proposals that have their merits and flaws.  Either could solve the tooth-to-tail ratio on paper, but when you look at the HR system used by the forces, the first will decrease the viability of Reserve units (which was the subject of the first post) by making it even harder to find the junior officers they need.  I have no idea what the effects of the second proposal will be, but a reorganization of the senior CF staff does not go far enough.

Please pardon my noobiness (both to army.ca, the Army, and the CF), and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem is with the lack of an HR plan.  We have an incredibly diverse array of recruiting needs, not just Army/Navy/Air or reg/reserve.  To use the example of Charlottetown, PEI:  There are three reserve units competing for recruits, one Navy, two Army.  Each of these have a recruiting office, to specifically meet the needs of that one unit.  There is also a CF recruiting office that handles the needs of the regular Army/Navy/Air Force, but also handles every recruit from the three reserve units.  So: there are four different recruiting offices in a city of less than 60 000 people, each with a different goal.  This is arguably not an efficent use of resources, and it is repeated in nearly every Canadian city.

I understand why the HR system works the way it does:  because there is a huge diversity of needs within the CF.  These people need to supply the immediate needs of three wildly different forces, in both their regular and reserve incarnations, AND ensure that the people they take in today fill the slots (NCM and officer) needed to manage the CF a decade from now.  The decisions that the CF has made with regards to integrating the reserves more with the regulars are made on the basis of operational need: a reserve soldier should be held to the same training standards as regular soldiers, the only difference is readiness.  This decision is operationally necessary, but costs more money.

Money isn't everything.

Saving money by demoting the CDS position or requiring all officers to be CFR may save money, but will cause other problems.  There are considerations besides money to think about.  There are much better reasons to make these decisions, like " . . . ensure they [officers] have some real world experience to guide them." (a_majoor)

I'm going to be an officer because of the needs of my (future) regiment, not because of my ambitions to carve out an empire.


----------



## Infanteer

Since this thread is basically a return to a topic that was discussed in great detail vigorously a few months ago, I've merged the two together to allow other members view's on the issue to be brought into the fore.


----------



## darcy175

what requirements are needed to switch from an NCM to a commissioned officer if you dont have a university education. any input would be great


----------



## Da_man

You cant   :blotto:

[Edited because it is possible to transition from NCM to officer]


----------



## Big Foot

If you're going to university, I believe there is some way to switch. Talk to an officer at your unit or something, they would know better than me.


----------



## aesop081

If you are a senor NCO, are an outstanding performer and get noticed by the higher-ups........you may be *OFFERED* to CFR ( comissioning from the ranks).  No degree required.  I do beleive that the MOC you are going to must be realted to your NCM MOC ( i.e. infantry to infantry officer, aesop to ANAV .........)

But like i said...you dont apply for this....you get offered !


----------



## JP

Your unit Adjutant can give you the information. Being offered is a unit specific custom.
You CAN do it, as long as you are Sgt qualified, and have a university degree or college diploma or at least be working towards one. 
You do have to possess outstanding skills and your superiors will have noticed that by now.
You can also quit as an NCM and apply as an officer, so long as you are enrolled in post-secondary education, you are eligible.
Talk with your Officer, Adjutant, WO, CSM or RSM for advice. If you're not a punter they'll give you good advice. If you are a punter, or they really want to keep your skills in the ranks, they'll disuade you.
At some point in the very near future, every officer will be required to have a degree.
But then one has to ask... why do you want to be an officer in the RHLI?


----------



## MJP

There are two ways without a current university degree to become an officer from an NCM(there is another way if you have one already).  

One was already mentioned and that is CFR.  Usually Sgt and above, but my be given to outstanding MCpls.  It always(AFAIK) to the MOC your are currently in.

The other is UTPNCM or university training plan non-commissioned member.  This plan see you go to university and complete your degree.  You get paid your normal wage, as well as all schooling costs and upon graduation you are obligated to serve for X number of years to help the CF realize the cost of sending you to school.  It is an extremely competitive program and your best bet is to read up on all CFAO related to it and do your homework.


----------



## darcy175

Thanks. i didnt know the best was to go about it


----------



## DjC

Hi there, I have recently enlisted into the reserve and am considering going on to the Regular Force in the future. However, I am unsure of what NCM and Officer mean and how they would apply to me if I were to go regular force.


----------



## pbi

Take a look around this site: this subject has been discussed at considerable length on other threads. Cheers.


----------



## 21trucker

I know this may not relate to this topic directly; but just out of curiousity, say you wanted to go from officer to ncm (don't ask)? 
What would be the process? Is this inclusive of PRes, Reg, and CIC?
Would you have to leave the forces for a period of time? Is there a written policy on this? And where can i find it?

Just wondering, had a heated discussion with an individual concernig this topic, and am looking for the correct answer. I believe you are reguired to release for a period of time, but not 100% sure on this. Any comments/references would be helpful.

Thanks


----------



## CH1

HEY GUYS

BEING OLD SCHOOL AND HAVING BEEN FORCED FROM MY COMFORTABLE 3 HOOKS, THERE IS A PARALELL IN THE RANKS AND OFFICERS.  MCPL's ARE ALMOST A GIVEN POSITION, MUCH THE SAME WAY SOME OFFICERS MAKE THEIR GRADE.  AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED GOOD OFFICERS ARE INSTINCTIVE MUCH THE SAME AS GOOD SNR NCO;s.  FAR TOO MANY GET THE GRADE ON BOTH SIDES, FROM THE BOOKS & / OR BROWN NOSE.  ONE OF THE THINGS TAUGHT IN COMMAND SCHOOL IS THE REASON FOR SEPARATION OF THE RANKS FROM OFFICERS.  SOME ONE HAS TO ULTIMATELY MAKE THE CRAP DECISIONS THAT COST LIVES.  IT IS HARDER TO SEND YOUR BUDDIES TO HELL ON A WILD SCHEME, THAN BODIES THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.  I'VE HAD THE DUBIOUS HONOUR OF HAVING TO MAKE CRAP DECISIONS THAT AFFECTED PEOPLE I KNEW & WORKED WITH.

AT ANY RATE THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT SHOULD NOT HOLD THEIR GRADE, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A LACKSIDASICAL ATTITUDE.  THEY HAVE BOOK SMARTS WHICH QUALIFY THEM FOR ALMOST NOTHING IN THE FIELD.  WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO KNOWING OUR TRADE INSIDE & OUT.


----------



## dutchie

STOP YELLING!!


----------



## Infanteer

Do you not think that "knowing the trade" for an Officer requires "book smarts" ie: having a decent grounding in military issues and professional discourse?


----------



## a_majoor

I think the argument is about "Character", those almost undefinable things which separate true leaders from the rest. I personally have had candidates who routinely scored 90% on PO's, yet were unable to organise a breakfast line when tasked as course senior; these are the people who CH1 is reffering to.

Going back a step or two, CFR is one way to assess character, the candidate has already acted in a leadership capacity (and in the most demanding one of section commander). A very intense SAS style "selection" for leadership candidates is also a way of testing for character; no matter what the job, we want people who are not inclined to quit or take the easy way out. 

Given the security environment we wil be operating in over the next few decades, "Selection" might even be a good idea right at recruiting and junior leader training. In a three block war environment, small sub and sub sub units will have to operate independently in a very confused environment. The fate of service support convoys that got lost in OIF should be a grim reminder that EVERY rank and trade needs to learn the killing arts first, and each soldier has to have the character and determination to use their skills to the utmost.


----------



## CH1

Looking back on my comment, I have to clarify some points & I have to stand from my Perspective.  Yes it is good to have knowledge of military, & political issues and have a professional discourse.  Having cfr'd, I still have the the outlook of an NCO.  This may come from the ucw background, or from my training.  I do not pretend to understand global politics.  I understand mission politics.  Professional discourse is a loaded statement.  In my position, I have seen too many officers having their next career move as priority 1 over their people.  Making sure my people were properly equipped mentally, physically, & with the gear required for the job has always been my priority.  Yes I have a good knowledge of tactics through out history. The electronics degree does not present tactical advantage, where as knowing intimately the 7.62x39 AK47 does.  Knowing how to interpret a topo map gives me possible hides.  Knowing how , when & what to deploy is crucial.
                                                                                                                                                       Over the years I have seen a few Infantry officers rise to the top after having failed to pass basic field quals.  I spent a long time doing bdf's, and the critiques on them.  I probably made more than my share of enemies over the bdf reports simply because certain officers did not like the fact that a Sgt and later Lt could penetrate their defensive positions.  Instead of taking a "professional attitude" & learning, the position was that I had not followed the ex format (cheated).  Maybe my attitude is wrong as you, the younger generation have seen more combat than I have.  I do not profess to have all the prerequisite knowledge but if a target presents at 500m, & I have a  7.62x51-147 gr fmj, that round is gonna drop approx 1.2 m & I will have my people positioned for that.  (Sorry, grey moment, forgot the stats for SS109- 556x45)  If I do an ambush or ATC, you can rest assured that my people will be in the best & safest spot.  I will ensure that mission objectives will be reached.  By the same token there is good officers out there.  It has & always will be a juggling act to advance a good officer on merit alone.  The same can be applied to NCO's.  The per's & por's have not addressed this problem adequetely.  The old boys network still factors into the equation. 

     Am I popular in the Officer's Mess?  Probably as much as a case of the plague.  Will people follow me into harm's way? From what I have heard, 99% will (scary thoughts for old men.)  My own opinion of me as an officer? Let's not go there.  Will I put my can on the line for my people? See dotted line on neck.
Did I get my commision on merit? My guess not.  Do I know Parade drill? As good as any DI.

     Bottom line is the selection process is like swiss cheese.  It was probably built that way to allow enough people to qualify.  The problem being is there is no effective way to deal with the screw ups or other variables such as personality traits unless they hit critical mass.  In combat there are ways, but not socially acceptable.  The other half of the coin is simply that the military is not a place for people to climb the social order. The ratios of NCO's & Officers have to be brought back into line for the size of the military.  I don't know if any body else remembers this old stat, but 135 Leopards & 140 Generals.
We are sporting more Generals/capita than the whole US or Russian Army (cold war).  

     Who ever said there's no life like it, wasn't lieing.  In spite of systemic problems, my hat is off to all the young NCM's & Officers.  They collectively shine on the world stage with professional attitude & dedication, second to none! & this is the end of my rant on the subject, for better or worse.


----------



## George Wallace

I wonder why you think that it must be mandatory to have a University/College degree to be an Officer?

Just because you have a diploma or degree, doesn't make you smart.   I know many smart people who would not be able to survive in 'everyday life or jobs' so they stay in University.   They may be smart, but they don't have any common sense.   They couldn't lead you to the washroom, or even give you directions, if their lives depended on it.   Education diplomas or degrees do not make one a Leader.   Many of this countries greatest leaders didn't even have High School Diplomas.
Many highly educated people know how to 'screw the pooch' when it comes to getting work accomplished......look at our great companies like Bombardier, those AD Agencies in Quebec,.....they know that they can make money or get promoted because they have a piece of paper on their wall that says they are 'Educated' and can milk the system until caught.

I have noticed a distinct lack of 'Staffing' and Staff Work being done in the last few years when it comes to preparations for and deployment of Pers and Equip on Major Exercises or Deployments.   And these are "Degree Holding" Officers.   ......................................


GW


----------



## 043

Sorry if I am stepping on anyones toes but I wasn't going to read 10 pages of threads. 

I think that Offr's Command and NCO's lead. They should not have to come up through the ranks because then they would be too familiar with the troops. Familiarity breeds contempt! 

CHIMO!


----------



## pbi

Mike Cotts said:
			
		

> Sorry if I am stepping on anyones toes but I wasn't going to read 10 pages of threads.
> 
> I think that Offr's Command and NCO's lead. They should not have to come up through the ranks because then they would be too familiar with the troops. Familiarity breeds contempt!
> 
> CHIMO!



Sorry, Mike, but I have to disagree with most of this post. First off, officers definitely* do * lead. That is their primary duty and that is clearly laid out in their commission and is the basis of their training. It is when officers fail to lead (as we have sadly seen far too much of over the last decade or so in our military...) that serious problems develop. Look at history's greatest "commanders"-they were all leaders as well. In fact, officers are always leaders (good or bad...) but they may not always be commanders, since that power is specifically granted in certain appointments.

NCOs (and I was one...) on the other hand must always be leaders as well, although only the Section Commander appointment gives the NCOs power of command. To me the NCO is the "ultimate soldier" in his organization, or should be. The Section Commander, Pl/Tp 2IC, CSM/SSM and RSM should each be the example soldier that the troops below them look up to and want to be. Just as we have had officers who have failed us, I believe that (sadly) we have also had NCOs/WOs who seem to think it's all about "time in" instead of being leaders. Of couse, in the end, this too can be laid at the feet of officers because we accept and abet this kind of behaviour.

On the issue of   coming up through the ranks-I think you have made a very gross generalization about those of us who were NCOs/WOs first and then took our commissions. How "familiar" you are with those subordinate to you is a product of your personality, not of the fact that you came up through the ranks. Ask MGen(Retd) Lew McKenzie or LGen(Retd) Jeffreys, our previous CLS, both of whom started in the ranks. I know other fine officers in my Regt and others who have come up through the ranks, so I cannot accept your generalization.

Cheers.


----------



## 043

Obviously your opinion is correct.........Sir. LOL Nah I am just kidding, it's good to see different view points however, in your trade, Offr's do lead however in my trade, it is the NCO's who do the leading.

And I do agree with your other comment however, I think my point is very real and very valid.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have noticed a distinct lack of 'Staffing' and Staff Work being done in the last few years when it comes to preparations for and deployment of Pers and Equip on Major Exercises or Deployments.   And these are "Degree Holding" Officers.   ......................................
> GW



Hmm.  I see that you are in Pet, so are you referrring to BTE 03 and recent ROTOs (ie 0 and 13) If so, were the deficiencies at the unit level or higher?  I'm not being defensive, just doing a back bearing to make sure that I am not totally lost....


----------



## 043

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmm.   I see that you are in Pet, so are you referrring to BTE 03 and recent ROTOs (ie 0 and 13) If so, were the deficiencies at the unit level or higher?   I'm not being defensive, just doing a back bearing to make sure that I am not totally lost....



I think the thing being forgotten by him is that when we are not on an Operation we are training. And even when we are, we still train. Rehearsals, rehearsals, rehearsal!!!!!!


----------



## Spr.Earl

I don't know of late but most of those Eng Officers I knew who came up through the ranks were on the whole the best I have worked with.
I can only put it down too ; Been there,done it and got the T- Shirt.


----------



## George Wallace

No....what I mean is that the proper staffing is not getting done.   When deploying, it is not unusual to arrive and still not know what vehicle you may be in, what packet you may be in, not have a Route Card for all vehicles, some vehicles are still not marshalled because they are VOR'd,........just small things like that.

How about the MP at the TCP in Borden, who didn't stop traffic, but walked over and pushed the Pedestrian Walk button to change the light and then got back into her vehicle without directing traffic.   

In the old days, everyone was briefed on what the plan was and how it was going to be carried out to the minutest detail; who was responsible for what, Emergency numbers and contacts, Locations andTimings for all movements, Halts, and Release Points.   You knew where you would rest, eat and what to expect on arrival.   

Today, passage of info sucks.

GW


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

George,

As far as I know nobody has ever said that you need a degree to be a leader.   Although we are going to a degreed officer corps (an admitedly debatable decision) officers are of course not the only leaders in our army.   I am very reluctant to enter this thread because it is very personal and one's point of view and experiences have a great bearing on the position that we take.   Outstanding officers have been hurt by this decision (among other CF-inflicted wounds over the past ten years such as the constantly changing Kingston course).

I agree that having a degree on your wall does not magically transform you into a leader.   I saw plenty of fellow candidates thunder in on Phase training who had degrees or were working towards them.   They were very smart but lacked the ability to do the "gut check" required to pass.   All the same, I think having a degree can help an officer in his duties.   It must be combined, of course, with character and training (one you have, the other you get).   Hopefully the process of obtaining a degree will develop the capacity for critical thinking and analysis.   I credit spending five years in civilian univesity with giving me a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism when someone presents the latest fad (I should have been done in four but that's another story).   I don't think that having all officers with degrees will be the silver bullet that it was made out to be in the late 90s, but I do believe that having a degree can be beneficial.

All,

One unintended effect of having all officers come from the ranks is that you might actually see the regretable disappearance of the NCO or a reduction in his importance.   I have worked with at least one army like this and the officers ran everything (from the Section on up).   I think that having our "messes" is a strength of our Army.   We have a very wide leadership base that makes our Army hard to topple over.   It can take a while to figure it out, but I truly believe that everyone has an important role to play.   I believe that as long as the Tp Ldr/Tp WO (and so and so on) relationship is handled with care and mutual respect the bumps in the road can be smoothed out (as my own bumps have been and continue to be straightened out) .   Perhaps I'm just an arch-conservative trying to guard my little office!    ;D

Cheers,

Iain


----------



## Spr.Earl

You wish to read a good Bio of a man who came up from the ranks?

Read the story of Chesty Puller,better than Audie Murphy,I'm not denigrating Audie but a great read and lesson in reading his bio of careing for your men and leadership.

No he's not a Candadian or Brit but a Yank.
He was a U.S. Marine.

Good night Chesty.


----------



## pbi

I only know of one case of this in the Regular Army, and he had to get out first then re-apply as an NCM. I have heard (as an aside...) that it is a practice in the US if a very junior officer is not performing well, to offer them NCM svc in another MOC. Any of our US friends able to comment on that? Cheers.


----------



## mdh

Stillwell was another famous US commander who came up from the ranks, read Stillwell and the American Experience in China by Barbara Tuchman, good book as well, cheers, mdh


----------



## pbi

> No....what I mean is that the proper staffing is not getting done.   When deploying, it is not unusual to arrive and still not know what vehicle you may be in, what packet you may be in, not have a Route Card for all vehicles, some vehicles are still not marshalled because they are VOR'd,........just small things like that.



Hmmmm. I left Regtl duty in 1997, but--guess what--this sounds alot like a typical battalion road move back then (And I ran a few...) My impression was that the Road Mov O Gp was a waste of time (no matter who gave it--me or another OC Admin or the TO); almost nobody read route cards, nobody looked at route markers, alot of   people could not follow a map, and things like speed limits were not observed.



> One unintended effect of having all officers come from the ranks is that you might actually see the regretable disappearance of the NCO or a reduction in his importance



Very interesting. At one of our Bde Comds Conf last year, one of our guest speakers was   retired Air Force General Linden, who is doing an extensive study on the NCO Corps. I sat in on a very interesting and enthusiastic session between him and our various unit RSMs. One of the issues that came up was that if we make the NCO corps a "ladder" to becoming an officer, then the NCO "class" as we know it (and IMHO as we very much need it...) will begin to vanish as a separate animal, with a sense of self pride and standards to be maintained, and its role as a repository of blunt honesty, common sense and military TTP knowledge. They will all have stars and bars in their eyes, and be ever so careful not to say or do anything that might undo their chances. This, IMHO, would be a disaster.

My theory is not the "ladder"-rather it is a springboard-you climb a short way-say, to DP1 or maybe even to MCpl, then you "spring" into the commission stream if you meet the requirements. Education could be a gateway for a selection, or a follow-on. I do not agree with the idea that every officer should become a Sgt or WO first: that would not work on several levels.

If the Army you are referring to is the Norwegian Army, I have heard they are now returning to where they were in WWII, when they had professional NCOs and WOs. A story about that "Army without NCOs":

Years ago I was 2IC of Key Company of an AMF(L) battalion, deployed into Norway for ARCTIC EXPRESS, the AMF(L) flyover. During a lull in the ex, the Norwegian company that was hosting us took us out to see some of their amazing national fortress system. The Norwegian 2IC was chatting with me as we were watching the Cdn coy unload from trucks. The following dialogue ensued:

(Norgy) "Who is that guy there, yelling and shouting?"

(Me) "That guy? That's the Company Sergeant Major."

"Company Sergeant Major? What is that?"

"The ass-kicker"

"Ahh--yes...."ass-kicker". This is what we need in Norwegian Army!"

Cheers.


----------



## Chimo2803

I'm not sure about where to ask this, but I noticed the words "rank" and "NCM", so I figured it was close enough...

I noticed on the CF Recruiting site, it states that some NCMs can be considered for Officer training with having a University degree...is this correct? If so...what is expected of you to be considered for this, and what would distinguish you from so many other, and probably well qualified NCMs in the forces. How long would you have to be in the forces to be offered this, and what rank would you have to attain to be considered.

Thanks...


----------



## bossi

pbi said:
			
		

> "Ahh--yes...."***-kicker". This is what we need in Norwegian Army!"



GETE - yup - goes hand-in-hand with the Reader's Digest version:
"Officers lead, NCOs make it happen."


----------



## 043

bossi said:
			
		

> GETE - yup - goes hand-in-hand with the Reader's Digest version:
> "Officers lead, NCOs make it happen."



I put it a slightly different way.........officers command, NCO's lead and make it happen.


----------



## bossi

Mike Cotts said:
			
		

> I put it a slightly different way.........officers command, NCO's lead and make it happen.



No problem - just shows a slight "cultual" bias ...
(i.e. the infantry perspective of "follow me!" ... and the undefeatable "can do" attitude of the sapper!)


----------



## pbi

Ok-what does GETE mean? Cheers.


----------



## MJP

pbi said:
			
		

> I have heard (as an aside...) that it is a practice in the US if a very junior officer is not performing well, to offer them NCM svc in another MOC.



 Probably a rare instance in Canada as well, but I had a soldier that failed his course twice, was offered to become an NCM and he took it.


----------



## George Wallace

I am not arguing that it is not a bad thing that officers have to have a degree.   2Bravo touched on the point, that a degree is an assest for an officer.   The degree/diploma does not a leader make, but it is an asset in that leaders pocket.   

I think that we should look at our officer programs.   I question the idea of recruiting officers out of High School and giving them a free education at RMC.   These cadets are not always "leaders" and some may never learn enough in training to ever become leaders.   We should be looking at a proven source for our officer recruitment.   Look at the graduates of our Leadership Schools and offer the graduates of our Junior and Senior Leaders Courses and opportunity to get a Degree.   We would have people now entering RMC who are more "mature", experienced and already indocrinindoctrinatede military mindset.   We could probably give them a better education than what is given now, as things like Drill, GMK, etc. can be dropped from the ciriculumcurriculumay we would be saving dollars and giving proven leaders a Degree.

The fear of loosing the NCO Corps would be slight, as the CF Rank Structure should have a pyramid shape.   Initially the implementation of this may cause some concern in the ranks, but once in motion it should sort itself out.   Not all NCOs want to become Officers.   Only so many could be elected/selected to the program per year after initiation.   

I think this would benifit us grebenefit I know of no other organization in the world that recruits its' CEOs straight out of High School and then tries to train them for the "Top".

GW


----------



## chaos75

As was stated above, there are 4 ways to become an officer from the ncm ranks.

1) UTPNCM - have to be a corporal substantive (QL5) and have 2 full university credits already.   Heres a likn to help you out with that info.
http://utpncm.rmcclub.ca/

2) CFR - For outstanding MCpls and above, very competitive and most of the time stay in the same trade

3) SCP - For senior NCO's only, i.e. making MWO' and Chiefs into Capt to fill a needed officer position immediately

4) Get out, and reapply as DEO (if you have finished your degree), or ROTP to be sent to school

For an officer to switch to NCM

1) If there already commisioned and trade qualified they will have to get out and get back in

2) If there in but havent passed their phase course, they may be offered or can apply to revert to NCM, and the decision depends on whether there is room and the trade choices are usually limited


----------



## Infanteer

As I've stated before, I agree with PBI's sentiments.

As well, I'm not to sure that the argument that taking out Officers from the ranks will have a huge impact on the NCO Corps.  As it stands now, the Officer Corps is fairly easy to get into - get your degree and apply at CFRC.  In Canada, a degree isn't very hard to get (funding means cheap tuition, access to many different schools and programs, etc, etc)  So, if we have the Commission open to anyone with a little determination, why isn't the NCO Corps hemmeraging people who gun for a nice salary and a desk job?

Obviously, there is a bit of self-selection involved.  In the proposals I've made, aspiring for a commission involves making one's CofC aware that one is interested.  Many soldiers will not want to make the jump, instead focusing on developing as excellent NCOs.

But this touches upon a question that was brought up earlier in the thread.  Is there different qualities and abilities demanded of the soldiers you want to commission and the soldiers you want to develop into NCO's?  If there as, perhaps we should start identifying ways to pick these traits out and start work early in maintaining a solid NCO Corps.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> But this touches upon a question that was brought up earlier in the thread.   Is there different qualities and abilities demanded of the soldiers you want to commission and the soldiers you want to develop into NCO's?   If there as, perhaps we should start identifying ways to pick these traits out and start work early in maintaining a solid NCO Corps.



That is an interesting question, as I believe that it speaks to the innate as opposed to the learned, to character and not characteristics.   So if we accept that both officers and NCOs lead (with apologies to Mike Coutts - sorry Mike, I don't buy your distinction), is there something in the situation in which each must lead that demands specific traits?

This may be stepping into a minefield, so let me start by saying that I have been blessed, throughout my career, with the prprivilege of working with some truly outstanding Sr NCOs.   Any success that I or my various platoons companies and staffs have had over the years has been due in large part to those NCOs, and I have been taught and shaped by them in every sense.   Their leadership has been, and probably will continue to be, of greater impact and importance than whatever leadership I have provided.   

Yet still, there is a difference between me and my NCOs (besides training and education (most of them have been more educated than me...), so what is it?     

I believe that the fundamental difference is one of accountability and responsibility (which is of course derived from authority).   The officer is ultimately responsible and accountable for the actions of his command, including his NCO leaders, whereas the NCO leads within the protective shield provided by the officer.   

If one accepts that, then the traits that we would look for would be self-confidence, self-reliance, moral courage (ie the courage of ones convictions), judgement, and humility.

I may have it all wrong, but I rest assured that if so, I will soon be corrected...

Dave


Edited due to that dastardly spell check thingie that adds in extra letters etc...grr.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
I believe that the fufundamental difference is one of accountability and responsibility (which is of course derived from authority).  The officer is ultimately responsible and accountable for the actions of his command, including his NCO leaders, whereas the NCO leads within the protective shield provided by the officer.  

I agree with this, and where I think things went wrong more in my day was that there was not a whole lot of operational [ not training] experience to show who was a good leader but instead, because of that circumstance, more of a political setting and, as we all know, politicians [of any sort] have never been good at falling on their sword if things screwed up on their watch and so no one along the chain felt 100% confident that they were in that "protective shield"
In my opinion, there is a whole world of difference in being the first and loudest to yell out " follow me men" when its training and saying the same thing somewhere in Afghanistan.....live.
I'm of the opinion that, if we can keep them in, the military will have the best leaders over the next 10 years that they have ever had.

Sorry if this rambled, not really "my lane".
Bruce


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

PBI,

You guessed it!   I worked closely with an excellent Norwegian company for about a month during the CLJ.   While we had many similarities, the most striking difference was the lack of NCOs.   As an aside, however, I was impressed with their organization of the CV9030 Platoon.   Each vehicle had an armoured crew and an dismounted section with a leader for both.   Combine their force organization with our leadership structure (ie professional NCOs) and you have a pretty darn good force!

George,

I wouldn't say that we recruit our "CEOs" out of high school.   Our training system weeds out a lot of people (combat arms Phase training is pretty rigorous) and junior officers are always undergoing some form of tutelage (myself included).   There are a fair amount of checks and balances in place before you get to the level of OC or higher.

Infanteer,

I agree that the aspects of leadership performed by officers and NCOs in our Army are somewhat different and that they require different characteristics.   Success in one does not guarantee success in the other (some good officers would make bad NCOs and vice versa).   I think that a bigger problem in our Army is not having too many leaders but rather having leaders who try to do each others jobs.   

Cheers,

Iain


----------



## bossi

pbi said:
			
		

> Ok-what does GETE mean?



Well, it's right up there with Toe-Jam (TJMMD = "That Just Made My Day")
GETE is LOL with a silencer = Grinning Ear To Ear, also written GE2 or GE squared, but I thought I'd be gentle on the Luddites/senior citizens reading here and spell out the acronym in full ... ;D


----------



## pbi

> but I thought I'd be gentle on the Luddites/senior citizens reading here and spell out the acronym in full ...



 :rage: :rage: :threat: :skull: :gunner: :flame:

Cheers


----------



## tomahawk6

Very interesting thread with alot of great comments. At one time I too thought that prospective officer's should start as private's. Now I think its not as important the source of the officer as the quality of cadet training to prepare that cadet for his first duty assignment as a platoon leader. Lt's are mentored by their NCO's- if they allow it. In other words there are new 2Lt's who know they lack practical experience and then there are the guy's that think they know everything and can do anything. In the case of the latter they have a rough time. Young officer's need to learn the ropes from their NCO's as well as from their company commander. The successful company CO must have effective platoon leader's ,to affect this the company CO must mentor their platoon leader's and get them to be open minded in taking advice from their senior NCO's.

There has been some discussion about adopting the UK/Canadian system where Major's command a company. This might work in a smaller army where you want to create job's for Major's. I think it creates a glut of Major's with limited opportunity to advance to LTC. Our most recent promotion list to Major selected an amazing 96% of eligible Captain's. But selection to LTC is even more competitive and until Iraq we utilize an up or out policy. Meaning if you are passed over twice you are out [under the rank of LTC]. If a LTC fail's to get promoted he/she can stay until manadatory retirement. I think Major's are future battalion commander's and need to be a Bn S-3 and a Bn XO not a company CO. Our junior leader's [Lt/Capt] have done an outstanding job in both Iraq and Afghanistan so our officer training must be effective.


----------



## Radop

Chimo2803 said:
			
		

> I noticed on the CF Recruiting site, it states that some NCMs can be considered for Officer training with having a University degree...is this correct? If so...what is expected of you to be considered for this, and what would distinguish you from so many other, and probably well qualified NCMs in the forces. How long would you have to be in the forces to be offered this, and what rank would you have to attain to be considered.



It is called the Special Commissioning Plan and you must have an approved degree in the classification you choose.  For example, if you were to choose CELI Officer, you would have to have an Engineering Degree or Computer Science Degree.  The best person to talk to is the BPSO.  They should be able to answer everything for you.


----------



## thorbahn

Hi, this is certainly true. On my BMQ course of 27, there are 2 Officer Cadets and one 2nd Lieutenant. These 3 were given these ranks immediately upon joining, solely based on their University degrees.

The 2nd Lieutenant was given that rank because he had 2 degrees, one which was Education....not sure of the other.


----------



## McG

Unfortunately, your example is irrelevant to the question and stated incorrectly.  The three on your course applied and were accepted to enroll as officers.  This is not something that happened after they left the CFRC, and if they wanted to be NCMs they could have been.

The question was about joining as an NCM and then at a later date becoming an officer because of an already held university degree.  As stated by RADOP, it is possible and is called the Special Commissioning Plan.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Hereis the relevant CFAO:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/009-70_e.asp



> *CFAO 9-70 SPECIAL COMMISSIONING PLAN*
> 
> PURPOSE
> 
> 1. This order prescribes the policy and procedures governing the Special
> Commissioning Plan (SCP).
> 
> GENERAL
> 
> 2. The purpose of the SCP is to provide a means whereby Regular Force
> non-cornmissioned members (NCMs), possessing the academic qualifications for
> enrolment as a direct entry officer (DEO) in accordance with Annex A to
> CFAO 6-1, Enrolment--Regular Force, may apply for commissioning. It is
> stressed that the SCP is intended only for those who have displayed
> personal qualities and job performance indicative of officer potential.
> Selection is subject to the applicant's officer suitability and existing
> military requirements.
> 
> ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
> 
> 3. To be eligible for the SCP an applicant must meet the following
> requirements by 1 Jul of the year in which the selection board is convened:
> 
> a. Citizenship. An applicant must be a Canadian citizen or, if a landed
> immigrant, meet the requirements of serial 1 of Annex A to CFAO 6-1;
> 
> b. Period of Remaining Service. Superceded by ADM(HR-Mil) Instruction 14/04
> 
> c. Military Qualification Level. An applicant must have achieved a
> minimum qualification level (QL) 3;
> 
> d. Medical Standards. An applicant must meet the minimum medical
> standards in accordance with CFAO 34-30, Medical Standards for the
> Canadian Forces, for the MOC(s) for which application is made. The
> applicant's medical profile must be awarded or confirmed within the
> 12 month period immediately prior to the competition closing date; and
> 
> e. *Academic Standards. An applicant must possess a baccalaureate degree,
> or in some cases a technology diploma, that satisfies the criteria
> specified in Annex A to CFAO 6-1, or, alternatively, in Annex A to
> CFAO 9-12, Regular Officer Training Plan*.
> 
> APPLICATION PROCEDURES
> 
> 4. Announcement of the annual competition will be promulgated by message.
> 
> 5. SCP application procedures are as follows:
> 
> _*(see remainder at link)*_ - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/009-70_e.asp


----------



## Gayson

It only says Regular Force in there.  I assume then that a reservist NCM could not comission from the ranks?


----------



## McG

CFR is a separate program entirely and does not require the university education.
It is an option for reservists.


----------



## thorbahn

MCG said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, your example is irrelevant to the question and stated incorrectly.  The three on your course applied and were accepted to enroll as officers.  This is not something that happened after they left the CFRC, and if they wanted to be NCMs they could have been.
> 
> The question was about joining as an NCM and then at a later date becoming an officer because of an already held university degree.  As stated by RADOP, it is possible and is called the Special Commissioning Plan.



Ah, I must have misunderstood the question. Although, I'm not sure if you're suggesting they applied to be officers, because that is not the case.


----------



## rcrs

Man this site is great! I did a search and found out most of the info I was interested in but still have a few Q's.

Ok, I'm Res NCM with 5 years in, doing Engineering degree with 1 year left. I'm stayed Res cause ROTP doesn't give any huge benefit $ or career wise. But I'm considering EGN in reg force Officer. I know UTP-NCM is for reg f ncm only. And CFR is for CO's recomendations (this include revervists?). But what is OCTP-FS? I can't find any info on it?

I'd prefer to get onto the pay level D or E, but since ROTP does not give any benefits to members of reserves I'm guessing the system is designed so that former reserves can't get the same sweet deal (pay level D/E) as the reg force members can?

Looking forward to hearing your input, thanks

rcrs


----------



## TheCheez

Best thing to do is talk to a recruiter.

You might notice that the pay scales are even once you hit Capt which is not so far down the line. Also if you have your engineering degree they may still be offering a 40k bonus for joining as DEO.

If the money is that important to you though I was under the impression that Civie engineers made a LOT more money than DND officers.


----------



## tree hugger

However, if you have already received any money from the reserve education reimbursement, you are not eligible for the signing bonus.


----------



## kincanucks

rcrs said:
			
		

> Man this site is great! I did a search and found out most of the info I was interested in but still have a few Q's.
> 
> Ok, I'm Res NCM with 5 years in, doing Engineering degree with 1 year left. I'm stayed Res cause ROTP doesn't give any huge benefit $ or career wise. But I'm considering EGN in reg force Officer. I know UTP-NCM is for reg f ncm only. And CFR is for CO's recomendations (this include revervists?). But what is OCTP-FS? I can't find any info on it?
> 
> I'd prefer to get onto the pay level D or E, but since ROTP does not give any benefits to members of reserves I'm guessing the system is designed so that former reserves can't get the same sweet deal (pay level D/E) as the reg force members can?
> 
> Looking forward to hearing your input, thanks
> 
> rcrs



Are you looking for academic subsidization or an entry plan because it is certainly hard to tell from your post.  Subsidization - no and entry plan for Reg F is DEO after you finish your degree and you start at pay level C.


----------



## foxtwo

Just wanted to know what you would recommend out of the two, and the different roles and responsibilities, which one is more fun...


----------



## Gunner

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22686.0.html

Do an advanced search of the recruiting forum and you will find many discussions on this topic.  I have placed a link to one of them.

Good luck.


----------



## Zombie

I'm going NCM mainly because SAR Techs do not take officers, although I'd probably go NCM anyway, and become an officer later if desired.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer

FoxTwo,

I realize you are doing some soul searching but you said you wanted to be a pilot in previous posts and seemed pretty excited about that. Do well in high school, extremely well, eat lots of carrots and think of nothing else if this is truly what you want.


----------



## Da_man

At first i wanted to become an officier... But now that im an NCM i dont want to be an officer anymore.  Its really a different job.


----------



## Poppa

Well it's happened.
Just crossed over to the dark side effective 31 Mar. It's going to be a huge change in how I approach things now.
I think the hardest thing will be not jumping in and letting the NCO's do their thing (even if IMHO I can do it better).

On the plus side I know that this board can serve as a great PD tool and if I get too wrapped around the axel there are those here that can sort me out.

Funny, I'm nervous about going to work on Monday.

Cheers


----------



## pbi

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Very interesting thread with alot of great comments. At one time I too thought that prospective officer's should start as private's. Now I think its not as important the source of the officer as the quality of cadet training to prepare that cadet for his first duty assignment as a platoon leader. Lt's are mentored by their NCO's- if they allow it. In other words there are new 2Lt's who know they lack practical experience and then there are the guy's that think they know everything and can do anything. In the case of the latter they have a rough time. Young officer's need to learn the ropes from their NCO's as well as from their company commander. The successful company CO must have effective platoon leader's ,to affect this the company CO must mentor their platoon leader's and get them to be open minded in taking advice from their senior NCO's.
> 
> There has been some discussion about adopting the UK/Canadian system where Major's command a company. This might work in a smaller army where you want to create job's for Major's. I think it creates a glut of Major's with limited opportunity to advance to LTC. Our most recent promotion list to Major selected an amazing 96% of eligible Captain's. But selection to LTC is even more competitive and until Iraq we utilize an up or out policy. Meaning if you are passed over twice you are out [under the rank of LTC]. If a LTC fail's to get promoted he/she can stay until manadatory retirement. I think Major's are future battalion commander's and need to be a Bn S-3 and a Bn XO not a company CO. Our junior leader's [Lt/Capt] have done an outstanding job in both Iraq and Afghanistan so our officer training must be effective.



Tomahawk-didn't you post this comment, or something very much like it, somewhere else? I seem to recall responding to your observations about "jobs for Majors" and a "glut of Majors" on another thread. Suffice it to say, we represent two very different armies with differing ways of doing things, different concerns and very different heritage. We lack your mass, firepower and overwhelming logistics so we (along  with many Commonwealth armies including the UK) have to rely on greater experience at lower tactical levels and generally higher levels of individual training for the average soldier. 

We have also traditionally operated with emphasis at a lower tactical level than the US forces, although IMHO your recent experiences in OIF/OEF are certainly changing that. A symptom of this is the concentration of experience in a Commonwealth-style company/squadron/battery HQ: A Major as OC (US=Capt), A Capt as 2IC (US=1Lt), and a Sgt Maj (US=First Sgt) make up the key members of the command team. It works for us. Only a percentage of our Capts will ever make it to Maj (our promotion percentages are nowhere near as high as yours...) so the "glut" really never materializes. And only a very, very small number of Majors will ever make it to LCol and then get selected for command of a unit, so we can't regard unit command as the sole potential employment for Majors.

Cheers.


----------



## HangEmHigh

Hello everyone,   I've been an avid reader of this forum site and am making my very first post!  (How exciting!!)

I am looking for suggestions from those who have travelled the winding road joining the CFs.  My interest in becoming a member of the CFs began when I inquired about joining my local Army Reserve Regiment (I have just completed applying for an NCM Infantry position with them).  

Excited about the training and lifestyle prospects of a Reserve position, I have been seriously considering taking it to the next level and joining the CFs full time.  Here's where things get a little hazy for me as there are many career paths open to me.  My ultimate goal is to become an officer in the Army (logistics, intelligence - I'm still deciding which would be best for me and would consider other options based on what (type of officer) the Army is projected to be in need of).

A little background on myself.  I am 30 years old and have a high school education (sadly my grades average at just over 70% and no credits equivalent to today's "university prep" level).  I have a strong leadership backgroup backed with a wealth of management experience from my current and past employers.

So with that in mind here's what I've been looking at.

1) ROTP - I would like to do this, and I'm aware of the challenges ahead.  I am prepared to take the required H.S. Uni. prep courses to bolster my diploma to make me a viable candidate for this program.  This could take up to a year to complete.

2) Stay in the reserves and go to College/Uni (to get a B.A) on my own.  This would still require me to upgrade my H.S. grades/credits.  Then join the CFs as a DEO candidate.  This could take in upwards of 4 to 5 years to complete.

3) Join the CFs as an NCM and take the Officer training program (I forget the lengthy title of this one) after my first term of service is up.  As I understand once again, I would still be required to upgrade my H.S. marks/credits.  Is it difficult to make the transition from NCM to Officer once enrolled?

Basically I am a mature, intelligent man - who could kick his own butt for being such a lazy-slacker as a teenager!  I am fully committed to getting an education and a progressive career.  Is there anyone out there who has experienced a similar situation?  Any advice any of you could give would be greatly appreciated!!

Cheers


----------



## kincanucks

_1) ROTP - I would like to do this, and I'm aware of the challenges ahead.   I am prepared to take the required H.S. Uni. prep courses to bolster my diploma to make me a viable candidate for this program.   This could take up to a year to complete._

Forget it.   Hard to see anyone over 22 getting selected.   They are looking for fresh young minds and bodies to mold.

_2) Stay in the reserves and go to College/Uni (to get a B.A) on my own.   This would still require me to upgrade my H.S. grades/credits.   Then join the CFs as a DEO candidate.   This could take in upwards of 4 to 5 years to complete._

Personally, unless you are unsure about joining fulltime this would be a waste of time.

_3) Join the CFs as an NCM and take the Officer training program (I forget the lengthy title of this one) after my first term of service is up.   As I understand once again, I would still be required to upgrade my H.S. marks/credits.   Is it difficult to make the transition from NCM to Officer once enrolled?_

The program is called the University Training Plan for NCMs (UTPNCM) and I wished I had done it instead of Officer Cadet training plan for men (OCTPM) which no longer exists.   You be required to do more that upgrade your marks you will also need to complete university courses.   The more you have done the better your chances of selection.


----------



## HangEmHigh

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _1) ROTP - I would like to do this, and I'm aware of the challenges ahead.   I am prepared to take the required H.S. Uni. prep courses to bolster my diploma to make me a viable candidate for this program.   This could take up to a year to complete._
> 
> Forget it.   Hard to see anyone over 22 getting selected.   They are looking for fresh young minds and bodies to mold.
> 
> _2) Stay in the reserves and go to College/Uni (to get a B.A) on my own.   This would still require me to upgrade my H.S. grades/credits.   Then join the CFs as a DEO candidate.   This could take in upwards of 4 to 5 years to complete._
> 
> Personally, unless you are unsure about joining fulltime this would be a waste of time.
> 
> _3) Join the CFs as an NCM and take the Officer training program (I forget the lengthy title of this one) after my first term of service is up.   As I understand once again, I would still be required to upgrade my H.S. marks/credits.   Is it difficult to make the transition from NCM to Officer once enrolled?_
> 
> The program is called the University Training Plan for NCMs (UTPNCM) and I wished I had done it instead of Officer Cadet training plan for men (OCTPM) which no longer exists.   You be required to do more that upgrade your marks you will also need to complete university courses.   The more you have done the better you chances of selection.



Thanks for your reply...  I am defnitely cdefinitelyto the idea of joining full time... I'm just not sure which path to take.  It seems as though the UTPNCM (thanks for the name!)  would be the way to go.  I have no doubt in my mind I am fully capable to rising to the challenge of not only improving my HS marks, but also getting the UNI rolling on my own.  Is the selection process for this similar to that of the ROTP? ( In regards to having a major disadvantage of being "long in the tooth" at 30? )

Cheers!


----------



## kincanucks

No while the average age of a ROTP cadet is probably 22, the average age of a UTPNCM cadet is probably more in the 30s.


----------



## HangEmHigh

Well that makes me feel a little better about going that way.  Thanks for the advice!


----------



## shadow

I have something to add to your choices.
I agree that ROTP is probably an unlikely choice at your age.
However I would like to inform you that if you decided to do the UTPNCM route, you must serve your first Basic Engagement, become journeyman (QL5) qualified and promoted to Cpl before you can even apply.  This means that it will take *at least* 4 years to get into the program, then another 3 years before you've graduated from University and commissioned to Officer.  This is assuming that you get your QL5 within your first 4 years, and you get accepted into UTPNCM your first year of applying (which does not happen that often).  Some people apply over and over again and never get accepted.
That's twice as long to become an Officer as if you did the Reserve-then-DEO route and it's putting a lot of faith into the system as opposed to going out there and getting what you want yourself!  
Good Luck!!
Shadow


----------



## Fideo

Guys whats ROTP (Recruit Officer Training Program ???) Taking a guess......thanks!


----------



## aesop081

Fideo said:
			
		

> Guys whats ROTP (Recruit Officer Training Program ???) Taking a guess......thanks!



Regular Officer Training Program


----------



## Fideo

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Regular Officer Training Program



thanks aesop!


----------



## HangEmHigh

shadow said:
			
		

> I have something to add to your choices.
> I agree that ROTP is probably an unlikely choice at your age.
> However I would like to inform you that if you decided to do the UTPNCM route, you must serve your first Basic Engagement, become journeyman (QL5) qualified and promoted to Cpl before you can even apply.  This means that it will take *at least* 4 years to get into the program, then another 3 years before you've graduated from University and commissioned to Officer.  This is assuming that you get your QL5 within your first 4 years, and you get accepted into UTPNCM your first year of applying (which does not happen that often).  Some people apply over and over again and never get accepted.
> That's twice as long to become an Officer as if you did the Reserve-then-DEO route and it's putting a lot of faith into the system as opposed to going out there and getting what you want yourself!
> Good Luck!!
> Shadow



Thanks Shadow!

That does put things into perspective for me.  So the "competition" for getting into UTPNCM is rather fierce I take it?  

It looks as though my train of thought has come full circle - as you have said "going out there" and getting it myself will be the quickest way to getting what I want.  (although more expensive for me... would it be worth it for the sake of becoming an officer 4 years earlier?   Probably I think.)

Cheers!


----------



## shadow

Don't quote me on this, maybe someone out there can confirm, but I was under the impression that reservists now can be reimbursed for part of their tuition?.  You can also become a reserve Officer Cadet while you are in school (do the Officer training in the summers) and commissioned once you graduate.  Then you could try and component transfer to the Regular Force from the Reserves.  Also, these days a lot of Reserve courses are equivalent to Reg Force courses, so you may not have to do some of your phase training over again when you transfer/join.

Yes, UTPNCM is fierce, but not impossible (I got in   ).  You go through the same testing/interviews as if you were joining ROTP, then you are merited against other members of the military as opposed to other civilians.  So one year you could be up against Master Corporals with tons of leadership experience, university courses and tours overseas, and if they appear to have more Officer potential, then they are placed higher on the list.  Often the Personnel Selection Officers won't place you as high as you should be the first year, because they want to see if you will apply again next year, and if you've improved on anything from your first interview. (This confirms to them that Officer is something you really want, not something your friends dared you to apply for   )

Cheers,
Shadow


----------



## Gouki

I thought I would give something to think about .. Of course kincanucks is right about ROTP however .. my mother is in ROTP, last year and currently in her BOTC. She is 42 years old..

However they have given her a hard time about it (especially in IAP) but so far the instructors seem to be treating her fairly. But she can testify to them looking for young minds/bodies to shape and mold, however she has toughed through the age difference..

So .. it's not impossible


----------



## kincanucks

I am assuming that your mother is going ROTP/Undergrad (Civie U) and not to RMC?  I should have clarified that it is possible to get to go to civie U under the ROTP at any age but the chances of getting into RMC were very slim at later ages.


----------



## Gouki

Oh yes, she is going to civvie university, she was told in no uncertain terms that RMC was out of the question


----------



## FastEddy

Considering your present Posting/Assignment, I would imagine you are in a position to accurately provide a statistical over view of the CAF.s (Army) Permanant Force.  1. Total applications Rec'd 2. Total applicants
enrolled(all Branch's inclusive). 3. Totals of rejected applications by group due to Health, Education, Others.
for at least the last 12 months or the year of 2004.

If you are unable, could you please supply a link that this information would be available


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Two simple questions:

Is it possible to go from being an NCO (Mcpl or Sgt +) and being comissioned as an officer ? 
Is it also a requirement to have a degree or whatever the university requirements are to accomplish this?


----------



## Michael OLeary

You may want to start by reviewing this thread:

UP FROM THE RANKS! (a lengthy and very worthwhile thread discussing officer entry programs, from a starting point of view considering prior service as a Non-Commissioned Member (NCM)) -- http://army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html


----------



## blueboy

Yes it is. I did it myself back in the early 90's after joining as an aeroengine tech I went back to college, then to university. Upon successful completion I was commissioned as a Lt within the Security Branch. I am no longer in the CF and have moved onto greener pastures with the Vancouver Police Dept.


----------



## Jay4th

I just spent an hour reading the historic and monumental thread Micheal suggested previously.  It should almost be required reading at recruiting centers.  It should also qualify as  post secondary education itself    At least for those who read it in its entirety.


----------



## blueboy

The up through the rank system works for those of us in the Police world. It allows the officer to relate to the troops easier as he has already gone through some of the  same experiences.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

blueboy said:
			
		

> Yes it is. I did it myself back in the early 90's after joining as an aeroengine tech I went back to college, then to university. Upon successful completion I was commissioned as a Lt within the Security Branch. I am no longer in the CF and have moved onto greener pastures with the Vancouver Police Dept.



But thats exactly what im wondering , I meant is it possible to be offerred a comission as an NCO, without any post secondary education? Or is it an absolute night and day requirement that one must have postsec/education before they can be an officer, in the CF, ever ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bit of an odd ball question.

I guess in hollywood there is a theme that officers  who come from the ranks are sometimes treated differently (in a negitive way) by their fellow officers who never served as NCMs.  Does that stereotype have any truth or is it all hollywood crap?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Mack674 said:
			
		

> But thats exactly what im wondering , I meant is it possible to be offerred a comission as an NCO, without any post secondary education? Or is it an absolute night and day requirement that one must have postsec/education before they can be an officer, in the CF, ever ?




Yes, you could be offered a commission without a degree. It sometimes happens to Master Warrant Officers and Chief Warrant Officers towards the end of their careers.

For a younger NCO, theoretically it's possible, and who knows what changes to commissioning plans may occur in the furture. HOWEVER, that being said, the odds of it happening to any one individual are slim, progressing realistically to ZERO.  And the likelihood remains that any such commissioning plan will include the requirement to complete a degree.  Using the slight possibility of being offered a commission without a degree or degree requirement as the basis of a career plan would be about as solid as using only Lotto 6/49 as your retirement income plan, or even less so.


----------



## ProPatria05

I know I am treading on thin ice here, as NOBODY questions the Regimental Rogue  

However.....

I know several Lt's/Capt's in 1 and 3 RCR who commissioned from the ranks (not UTPNCM). I also did my Phase 3 and 4 (just last year) with a number of CFR's (mostly Van Doos). All were former Sgts, with the exception of one WO (six in total, I believe).  In fact, two of our course staff on Phase 4 were CFRs.  I know there were a number of CFR's that went through in 2004 as well.

Perhaps in the past it was rare, but it is obviously not so anymore, at least in the Infantry.

Just to be clear for those who don't know, the CFR program is an selection/competition that commissions certain NCOs (I believe the minimum rank is Sgt) without the requirement for a university degree, either on commissioning or as an implied task for the future. Having said that, the opportunity for progression past Captain is very limited without a university degree (based on what I have seen and have been told), although I'm sure there are individuals who have and will do this.

.......awaiting severe verbal barrage......  ;D


----------



## GO!!!

Keeping in mind that it usually takes between 8-12 years to become a Sgt, and then hope your CoC notices how great you are, just do the degree and go officer right away. I am not convinced that one requires experience as an NCM to be a good officer, and as Murph said, I am only aware of one CFR making Major - mostly because they are so old by then.

Perhaps some of the officers around here can back this up, but there seems to be a bit of prejudice in the CF against CFRs, they just don't seem to get promoted as quickly or as often as the RMC/DEO types - truth or myth?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Murph said:
			
		

> .......awaiting severe verbal barrage......  ;D



No need for a barrage, but the questions remain whether this was due to a normal expectation for NCO career paths or short-term solutions to officer shortfalls. This has not been a long-term trend, not is there are proof it will continue any specified number of years.

How many of these NCOs started at the Recruiting Centre with a "plan" to be selected for and offered commissions at that point in their career?

How many would have been picked up if we'd had enough platoon commanders coming out of the officer entry programs?

My point has been that to make expectations of being selected for Commissioning From the Ranks (CFR) a fundamental basis of your career objectives on being recruited is a weak plan. There is absolutely no way of projecting officer requirements far enough out to predict that your suitability will coincide with CFR initiatives in 5 or 10 or 15 years.

GO!!!, it's not overt prjudice, but they will lag behind in all the little "potential" assessments at promotion merit boards. A 35 year old captain with two years in rank, albeit with 15 years as an NCM, just doesn't have the same employment potential for certain jobs as a 35 year old captain with 12 years in rank and the experience from various officer jobs that would have come with a few Extra-Regimentally Employed (ERE) postings. It's no different that the long-in-the-tooth officer that starts slipping in the lists beacuse me hasn't completed that degree, or doesn't have his language profile. So many at the top of each merit list (Offr & NCM) have all the professional development factors and are being rated by the level of job they have and their performance in it, that even missing one of those PD checkpoints can keep you out of the running. And, unfortunately, a CFR joins the race late enough that most can't catch up no matter how good they are.  For the record, I also know of a Sapper who CFR'd from MWO, went on to be a Reg LCol (now a Res F Col), and he wasn't even a "Professional Engineer". It can happen, it's just that the odds aren't great, and I wouldn't advise anyone to wager their career aspirations on them.


----------



## safeboy43

Mack674 said:
			
		

> But thats exactly what im wondering , I meant is it possible to be offerred a comission as an NCO, without any post secondary education? Or is it an absolute night and day requirement that one must have postsec/education before they can be an officer, in the CF, ever ?


Yes, it is possible to become an NCO or possibly even an officer without a degree. My uncle was in the Navy from 1989-1991 and he saw a young officer walk onto the bridge who started chatting with some of the other officers. The topic eventually came to what kind of degree this new officer had. He just said "Why in the world would I need university to navigate a ship?" and then walked off. Sufficed to say, I think the other officers were kinda pissed that they used their time on university when this new guy didn't. Anyways everybody got a good laugh out of it.

Cheers


----------



## a23trucker

CFR'ing may be more common in the reserves.....
The last I heard 40% of offr in the CF do not have degrees.
These days, to CFR you must meet the same entry requirements to be an officer, or as stated, for some Sr MWO/CWO near the ends of their careers. (This now takes a real good argument by the CO!) 

CFR'd offr can be promoted past capt. 
I can think of at least four off the top of my head incl two L/Cols. 
(I know I are one......CFR'd in '95 fm MWO.) 
You just have to be in the right spot (vacancies), take the crses(4 in 5 yrs) & put in the time.

I am hearing thru the grapevine (-a Capt(N) ) that if some of the top generals want to stop the CFR process or at least put a halt to any CFR without a degree. These are the same people who want to make it a requirement that any promotion beyond capt only be considered after a 2nd or masters degree.

My 2 cents anyways......

Cheers
AM


----------



## *star

Thanks for the explanation Michael. That makes alot more sense than the widely held theory of a bunch of Patricia Generals deciding which officers are worthy over Cohibas and brandy, whilst relaxing in the regimental castle!


----------



## Tracker 23A

I was a Sgt in the PPCLI and put in for the UTPNCM program as an officer in my trade.  Previous to that, I had my year long french course and currently have my degree.  I have no expectations of reaching a high rank (if you consider a Major high), nonetheless I am one of those guys who tries no matter what.  I received my Sgt rank with only 7 years in, and being a Cornwallis graduate.  The grass may be greener on the other side, but if you want to do the job you joined as a soldier, going officer is not the thing to do.  Being in the infantry, my eagerness to be with the boys in the field and in the **** just doesn't work in the officer world.  There certaintly isn't any "hands on" on this side.  If anyone is thinking of going to the darkside, make sure you are willing to give up the fun part of the trade and accept the boring administration part.

Nonetheless, I am glad I turned to the darkside and can experience it with half my career still left.  Having been there done that, as an ex-NCM and current officer, it truly gives me a complete awareness of how each side missunderstands one another.

No matter what anyone says, anyone who has been in all three messes in the CF will get a pat on the back from me.  And no course or experience can give you that.


----------



## armyvern

Tracker. Well said. I've often thought about it and my 9ers been kicking my butt to finished off my degree and CFR. I've seriously considered it but keep coming back to my own personal feeling of being able to help more by being here in the ****. 9er thinks that's not a good reason. But, I at least think it's the right reason not to.


----------



## pbi

blueboy said:
			
		

> The up through the rank system works for those of us in the Police world. It allows the officer to relate to the troops easier as he has already gone through some of the  same experiences.



And yet my impressions of the police service in Canada today (RCMP excluded) suggest to me that:

-many municipalities look elsewhere for a Chief Constable, "parachuting" somebody in from another PD. In this case rising up from the ranks within one Dept reaches a "dead end"; and

-IMHO one of the major problems plaguing police services is that the relationship between the "officers" (i.e. the white shirts) and the "troops" (the blue shirts) is almost non-existent in the sense that we recognize it in the Army. It seems to me to be a much more divided, "us/them" situation, aggravated on one side by the presence of Police Associations that are increasingly aggressive and politicized, and on the other by "management" who seem to show very little "leadership" in any fashion that we teach/recognize in the Army.

Perhaps a simplistic perspective by an outsider, but IMHO there is some truth to what I say.

Cheers.


----------



## pbi

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Bit of an odd ball question.
> 
> I guess in hollywood there is a theme that officers  who come from the ranks are sometimes treated differently (in a negitive way) by their fellow officers who never served as NCMs.  Does that stereotype have any truth or is it all hollywood crap?



This depends heavily on the personality of the officers involved. In the Canadian Army, coming from the ranks is certainly not a block to advancement: a previous CLS , LGen Mike Jefferies, started as a Gunner, and the famous MGen Lou Mackemzie was a Pte in the PPCLI. The deciding factors are not so much whether or not you were in the ranks, but rather your abilities and your level of education.

Cheers


----------



## calgarytanks

pbi said:
			
		

> And yet my impressions of the police service in Canada today (RCMP excluded) suggest to me that:
> 
> -many municipalities look elsewhere for a Chief Constable, "parachuting" somebody in from another PD. In this case rising up from the ranks within one Dept reaches a "dead end"; and
> 
> -IMHO one of the major problems plaguing police services is that the relationship between the "officers" (i.e. the white shirts) and the "troops" (the blue shirts) is almost non-existent in the sense that we recognize it in the Army. It seems to me to be a much more divided, "us/them" situation, aggravated on one side by the presence of Police Associations that are increasingly aggressive and politicized, and on the other by "management" who seem to show very little "leadership" in any fashion that we teach/recognize in the Army.
> 
> Perhaps a simplistic perspective by an outsider, but IMHO there is some truth to what I say.
> 
> Cheers.



I think these comments are certainly relevant to the situation in Calgary at any rate.  Perhaps not with Borbridge, but certainly with our first "female" police chief who came from Ontario.  AS well, Koenig of the police association is increasingly visible in the press and has been for many years; he seems to bear more clout in political matters than the chief constable at times.


----------



## pbi

We have seen similar behaviour in Toronto by a very aggressive and controntational Association leader.

Cheers


----------



## blueboy

As PBI has noted he believes there may be a problem with rising up through the ranks, however he leaves the RCMP out of the equation. As an organization with over 20,000 members in uniform you can't exclude the force. The concept of promoting from within also works for them as it has done for other departments across the country. We in the Police field do rise up the ranks, and yes some departments do go outside themselves to find a new Chief, however that chief has also risen up through the ranks after starting his/her career as a Constable somewhere. So in fact that person has come up from the bottom. It's really no different than some Regiments allowing CF personnel from another Regiment to transfer from let's say the RCR to the PPCLI for example. It works, and works well for the most part.


----------



## pbi

blueboy said:
			
		

> As PBI has noted he believes there may be a problem with rising up through the ranks, however he leaves the RCMP out of the equation. As an organization with over 20,000 members in uniform you can't exclude the force. The concept of promoting from within also works for them as it has done for other departments across the country. We in the Police field do rise up the ranks, and yes some departments do go outside themselves to find a new Chief, however that chief has also risen up through the ranks after starting his/her career as a Constable somewhere. So in fact that person has come up from the bottom. It's really no different than some Regiments allowing CF personnel from another Regiment to transfer from let's say the RCR to the PPCLI for example. It works, and works well for the most part.


I intentionally left the RCMP out because, as a national force, they do all their promotion from "within the ranks". However, my understanding from contacts over the years is that the RCMP also suffers from a "we/they" between the commissioned officers and the lower ranks, and faces a similar "field/NDHQ"-type relationship between the lower parts of the organization and the HQ. The RCMP, despite it military heritage, battle honours, etc has IMHO retained very few of the good things about the Army but apparently has kept a number of the bad things. Perhaps these are some of the factors contributing to its current retention and recruiting problems.

Overall, my impression is that there is little or no real "leadership" in either the Police Service or the Fire Service, in a manner that we in the Army would recognize. The model seems to be a "management/worker" one, but is that really what these organizations need? Wouldn't they benefit from applying a bit more leadership by personal example/personal presence, and a bit less "management by memo", or are police and firefighters such different people that Army principles of leadership would not apply? (And, yes...I know their organizational structures are different from the Army-I get that part).

Cheers

Cheers


----------



## hiphopculture

I am only months away until my training for the infantry division training begins...... and well my goals within the military pretty much ecompass peacekeeping as much as possible... and was wondering... if i should be an officer instead.. even though ive only complete one full year of college.....i know id need a degree of some sort... which the military pays for if ive commited... but i know its dirty work to do peacekeeping and what not.. and well pretty much after the rank of leutinent youre considered too "valuable" to put you out there like that... so what would i really be doing when im a major or what not? like what is the major difference in leadership roles between a warrant officer say and a major????


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You wanna peace keep join the peace corp.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"and well pretty much after the rank of leutinent youre considered too "valuable" to put you out there like that... "

Way off.


----------



## the 48th regulator

They called me a peacekeeper....

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens

"so what would i really be doing when im a major or what not? like what is the major difference in leadership roles between a warrant officer say and a major?"

I really don't think you have to worry about that too much....


----------



## Roy Harding

hiphopculture said:
			
		

> I am only months away until my training for the infantry division training begins...... and well my goals within the military pretty much ecompass peacekeeping as much as possible... and was wondering... if i should be an officer instead.. even though ive only complete one full year of college.....i know id need a degree of some sort... which the military pays for if ive commited... but i know its dirty work to do peacekeeping and what not.. and well pretty much after the rank of leutinent youre considered too "valuable" to put you out there like that... so what would i really be doing when im a major or what not? like what is the major difference in leadership roles between a warrant officer say and a major????



There's a key on your keyboard labelled "Shift".  If you press it in conjunction with any character key on the keyboard you will type a capital of that character.  This enables you to transmit clear, grammatical, correctly spelled English.  For instance, you can capitalize the letter "i" - "I".  There's also a key which inserts an apostrophe into your text - try it when constructing conjunctions - it'll make your text much easier to understand.  There's also a "Spell Check" available here - it might aid you even further.

Once you master these skilsl, perhaps you can reconsider your desire to become a "peacekeeper" or maybe, like, an Officer - in the meantime, read some of the threads on this forum - there is a vast difference between the leadership roles of a Major and a Warrant Officer, as has been discussed on this board in some detail.


----------



## Slim

hiphopculture said:
			
		

> I am only months away until my training for the infantry division training begins...... and well my goals within the military pretty much ecompass peacekeeping as much as possible



The Canadian forces do not have Peacekeepers...They have soldiers who primary job is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY REGARDLESS OF TERRAIN OR WEATHER. If you can't handle that, or have a problem with that mission statment then go elsewhere. The CF has enough problems with the current crop of deluded yahoos who feel that all we should be doing is wearing blue and handing out cookies and blankets.



> ... and was wondering... if i should be an officer instead.. even though ive only complete one full year of college.....i know id need a degree of some sort... which the military pays for if ive commited... but i know its dirty work to do peacekeeping and what not



Ask the recruiter about this, but I believe that there are ways...



> .. and well pretty much after the rank of leutinent youre considered too "valuable" to put you out there like that... so what would i really be doing when im a major or what not? like what is the major difference in leadership roles between a warrant officer say and a major????



I think that you need to spend more time A) at the recruiting centre getting far more aquainted with what the Infantry is all about, rather than your incorrect perception of it

And...

B) Carefully consider what you're getting into. Its all well and good to feel warm and fuzzy giving out aid relief. But that's not what the infantry does. The job of combat arms (of which infantry is a part) is to kill and wound the other side. All the rest (including Peacekeeping) is gravy.

PS - No one is ever "Too Valuable"...Think about it please.


----------



## Hopkins

Currently I have a year under my belt with 5RCA...I have BMQ/SQ/ATCIS but have yet to do my Gunners DP1 course...

Now, my family is moving back to Ottawa for my fathers new position and I'm just graduating highschool in 3 1/2 - 4 months...Now, there is no way I can afford to live in Victoria so therefore I WILL be moving...My application is in for RMC to become an Artillery Officer but I feel a year just isn't enough to understand thouroughly how an NCM/Officer cohesion should work.  I WANT to be an NCM until at least being a Bomber or higher, but I don't want to waste the possibly opportunity to get a good education.

Thing is, I love the field...There are things I experience there that I haven't experienced anywhere else and I just love it...I know junior officers get their field time but office work just isn't a high thing for me at the moment.

Still have to hear back from CFRC about RMC so that'll obviously play the role for my life.

 :skull:Ubique :skull:


----------



## .Badger.

Disclaimer: I have read many posts regarding the questions I raise, so posting links to them is unlikely to be illuminating. I will try and be succinct, but I’m basically selfish and would like some guidance regarding my own personal situation.

I complete my bachelor of commerce degree from UBC next year and will be faced with a difficult situation. For various reasons, I will only be 20 when I graduate. I am not particularly excited about taking a desk job at such a young age, even if the pay is acceptable. Business will be my career, but perhaps not so soon.

So, I am considering life in the army for my twenties then moving on to an MBA and private life when I am older and have family concerns. The obvious choice is DEO, it offers relevant leadership training, with regards to a business career, and the pay is decent. My only concern is this, I am aware of my personal limits and see infantry training as a better means to improve myself. Physical fitness, dedication, mental toughness, overcoming adversity and so on are traits I feel are important and that I should test. From Para training, Pathfinding and the ever popular special ops and JTF2, the end game for the best infantry looks both rewarding and fulfilling. 

My question is this, if I enter into infantry as a NCM, work towards specialized training, either fulfill that desire or discover it is a feat too far, can I enter into an officer program at will due to my degree? Is becoming a NCM a foolhardy choice when being an Officer is more relevant to my life, or does it make sense with regards to my aspirations and age? 

PS I can’t join the reserves for I am traveling in Europe and going on exchange until I graduate.


----------



## ark

.Badger. said:
			
		

> My question is this, if I enter into infantry as a NCM, work towards specialized training, either fulfill that desire or discover it is a feat too far, can I enter into an officer program at will due to my degree? Is becoming a NCM a foolhardy choice when being an Officer is more relevant to my life, or does it make sense with regards to my aspirations and age?
> 
> PS I can’t join the reserves for I am traveling in Europe and going on exchange until I graduate.



Simply because you have a degree does not mean you will be accepted as an Officer, there are other factors that are going to be considered. Also, if you go the NCM route make sure you perform well. Otherwise, you may not be recommended to go up from the ranks.


----------



## Leo791989

I was wondering if anybody knew about this. I am interested in getting in as a NCM and eventually after saving up some money want to finish my 2 years of University left. Currently my situation is tough, so very hard for me to survive and finish my undergraduate degree. . I want to become an officer in the forces but for that you need a university degree but I can't complete it right now. I also know about ROTP civilian university but unfortunately my ROTP Pilot didn't work out for this year cos I didn't clear my ACS. So for me to pick another trade and apply again it'll be another few months. So, I am thinking maybe for now work as a NCM and then go from there. Is it possible to apply for ROTP while a NCM? Any advice or info? 
Thanking you all in advance.


----------



## vonGarvin

I may be able to offer some advice by means of telling you about my experience. 
I was an NCM in the infantry.  I was posted to London, ON in 1992, and started going to university part-time on my own: one course at a time.  I learned of, and later applied for the University Training Plan for Non Commissioned Members.  I was accepted.  I then went to university, paid for by the CF and underwent my military training in the summers, much like an ROTP candidate.  So, yes, it is possible.


----------



## Mustang2

I am a Master Corporal who has been in the Infantry reserves for 7 years and I am currently in the process of commissioning from the ranks, even though I only have a three year college diploma.  So for those of you that asked it is possible and depends mostly on your individual unit rather than DND requirements.

However what exactly will happen when I get my commission is still up in the air.  I don't know anyone who has commissioned from MCpl.  In my experience Pte/Cpls go to Officer Cadet and Sgt/WO go to LT or Capt.  Can I expect to get my 2LT's or am I stuck becoming an OCdt.

Also I have a reg force JNCO course, will I have to do DP1 or will I be completely or partially exempt.

The idea of becoming an Officer Cadet and doing basic courses again doesn't appeal to me too much.

Has anyone hear of a similar situation?


----------



## PiperDown

I am going to CFR (from a MCPL), although I am in the Reg force.. so, I don't know if our situations will be exact.
I will commission as a 2Lt, and upon completion of phase training, I will be a LT.


----------



## vonGarvin

I didn't go CFR so I am unaware of what will happen in your two cases.  For UTPNCM, a former corporal will be commissioned to the rank of 2nd Lt.  For a MCpl or higher, you are commissioned to the rank of 2nd Lt and then immediately promoted to the rank of Lt. (upon receipt of your degree)


----------



## cda84

I can help you out a little bit. A buddy of mine was a MCpl and was commissioned to 2LT. He had to do DP1 (Phase 3 Inf), but had a BOTC/CAP bypass. However friends of his with the exact same qualifications were told to go to St-Jean. I guess it just depends who is looking at your file. There doesn't seem to be much method to the madness. But yes it is very possible you be given a Phase I & II bypass.


----------



## karl28

One of my best friends is at RMC right know he was originally a Master Bombardier I hope I spelt that right cause  I would never  hear the end of it if I got it wrong lol  He is currently going through for Artillery Officer


----------



## spr. mackinnon

Sorry buddy, I believe it is spelt Master Bombardier


----------



## karl28

spr. mackinnon            Thanks for the heads up I corrected my mistake . Now I am just gonna hang my head low  ;D


----------



## spr. mackinnon

No shame is needed, as long as you can spell sapper.


----------



## karl28

Thanks man I will make sure and remember how to spell sapper


----------



## mmk

Okay I went this friday and got all my recruitment papers. Im joining the army/infantry/regular.

I cant decide whether to join NCM or Officer.
So I want to know what exactly do Officers do that NCM dont/do.

A Officer is in control of a a whole section of how many people? 
Do Offiers go to mission or small missions? 
If I become an officer do I need to teach people stuff?
I want to take college with my army so do I need to tell the recruiter next time Im there or will he ask?
How come I "Officer Cadet on the top of the list for $1328(around $16,000) on top of the list?
Do I have to start as an "Officer Cadet" if I pick Officer?
I noticed when I got home that my recruiter circled NCM without asking me? Whats the deal?
What does specialist 1 & 2 mean? I see that they get payed more.
And Finally do you have to use a M16...Can you buy your own rifle and use that instead? I was thinking of a modified m-14 or M1 M1 Garand in the picture below.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Thinking About Joining (Section)

Career Debate Officer vs. NCM - http://army.ca/forums/threads/22686.0.html

Officer (section)

Officer/NCM differences  --  http://army.ca/forums/threads/1330.0/
UP FROM THE RANKS! (a lengthy and very worthwhile thread discussing officer entry programs, from a starting point of view considering prior service as a Non-Commissioned Member (NCM)) -- http://army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search


To summarize: Welcome to army.ca, start reading.


----------



## mmk

So your telling me that a second Lt has more power then a Chief WO?


----------



## mmk

What type of punishments would you execpt if you did something wrong? Smallest to biggest.


----------



## couchcommander

The army?

Oh man, well the first thing they'll do is make you go wash the toilet bowls with your toothbrush and then brush your teeth without cleaning - that's just if you answer questions like "Is that love in your eyes?" wrong!

At worst... OMG, they'll take you out back and then beat you with their pace sticks until your black and blue, then make you do pushups while they spray you with a hose for 48 hours straight!

It's the reason I didn't join up, but if you want to see what BMQ is REALLY like, go watch "full metal jacket" - they treat EVERYONE like Pile!


----------



## Infanteer

mmk said:
			
		

> So your telling me that a second Lt has more power then a Chief WO?



In strictly technical terms yes, a 2LT is of a higher rank than a CWO.  However, in reality it works a lot different.  CWO's have the ear of Colonel's while 2LT's scamper out of their way....


----------



## mmk

I guess they never heard of human rights?


----------



## GAP

You mean that's not the way to clean your toothbrush???

well, I guess I will just have to use it on my modified M14. Just be happy you never get to have an M1 thumb!!


----------



## mmk

How long does it usually take a pte to get promoted to cpl?
And from pte to CWO? 15 years?


----------



## George Wallace

It usually takes four years to reach Cpl.  If you reach CWO in fifteen years, it would be a miracle.  I am sure, however, that you can achieve RSM in three.


----------



## mmk

Four years for only corporal...are u kidding me?


----------



## Infanteer

No, I am not kidding you; for many, alot of hard work goes into earning that second chevron.  Just focus on basic training and earning the right to wear the uniform.

Until then, do as another Moderator asked of you and read more/post less.


----------



## Michael OLeary

mmk, slow down on the posting, start using the search function and start reading.  The FAQs are also a good place to start as are the main directories for the various forums.  With practice your search techniques will improve as you learn the vocabulary.

Now, for service offences, you need to learn about the Queen's Regulations and Orders, known colloquially as the "QR&Os".

QR&Os - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/intro_e.asp

Volume II - Disciplinary - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/intro_e.asp

Chapter 104 - Punishments and Sentences - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/tofc104_e.asp



> *104.02 – SCALE OF PUNISHMENTS*
> 
> Subsection 139(1) of the National Defence Act provides:
> 
> "139. (1) The following punishments may be imposed in respect of service offences and each of those punishments is a punishment less than every punishment preceding it:
> 
> (a) imprisonment for life;
> (b) imprisonment for two years or more;
> (c) dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service;
> (d) imprisonment for less than two years;
> (e) dismissal from Her Majesty’s service;
> (f) detention;
> (g) reduction in rank;
> (h) forfeiture of seniority;
> (i) severe reprimand;
> (j) reprimand;
> (k) fine; and
> (l) minor punishments."



Now, for your next simple question, try researching it yourself, as you can see, simple questions showing no attempt to find the answers lead to flippant replies.  And when those flippant replies turn into flame wars it makes extra work for the staff.  Members who concentrate on making extra work for the staff don't stay long.


----------



## Torlyn

And really, what's so slow about that?  I'll be lucky to get my first skinny in 3 years, and my second bar in 4-5...  You don't to add hooks/bars until you can at least do the job for which you were hired.  And really, in a 25 year career, what's 3 years?  

T


----------



## Spring_bok

mmk said:
			
		

> Four years for only corporal...are u kidding me?


It takes 2 and a half years to get your first hook.  That just means that you are trained(to use the term loosely) in your MOC.  Some guys make corporal after three years but not that many and they don't just give it away either.


----------



## Franko

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> It takes 2 and a half years to get your first hook.  That just means that you are trained(to use the term loosely) in your MOC.  Some guys make corporal after three years but not that many and they don't just give it away either.



Seen a few "special" cases go for about 7 years as a private...on the basis they couldn't complete the simplest of tasks without intense supervision.

Mind you those are pretty far and few between...thankfully.

They seem to be the type that like to ask alot of questions but don't bother to listen to the answers    

Regards


----------



## Leo791989

What if someone has a situation on hand? He/she signs up with CF as a NCM(Reg) and it's a 5 year contract. He/she finished his/her undergraduate degree and still has few years left before the NCM contract is over. 
Is there a transfer program or you just have to finish your NCM contract and reapply as a DEO. Also, this NCM has nothing to do with the Officer trade this person is interested in. For ex: 5 year contract as a Navy NCI(op) and finishing up the degree in 3 years and want to become a Air Navigator or Pilot but still has 2 yrs of contract left as a NCI(op).


----------



## Hatdag

Back to the basics of this topic, question being, "Is it better to walk in off civvy street to become an officer, or is it better to wear the commission with some pre-requisite time in the ranks?"

As a recently minted 2Lt in the RegF with over 6 years experience as a CPL with an operational tour from in the Reserves, there are valid arguments for both sides.

During my military experience, I've been fortunate enough to work for some very intelligent, capable, and motivated officers who would always show signs that they were genuinely concerned for the welfare of their troops.  I've also had the unfortunate experience of working for some of the most incapable officers who didn't give a dung about the troops under their command, and were more concerned with putting the very minimum into the position they held until they could sleaze their way into the next higher position.

I've seen both these brands of officer come from both direct entry, as well as coming from the ranks.  So it's safe to say that not one entry program is better than the other at producing quality officers in the end, but I will discuss what I think an officer brings to the table from either perspective-- experience or not.

COMMISSION FROM THE RANKS:

*Pros:*

We can all agree that a new officer shows up at the unit with a bunch of theory crammed into their heads, but very little practical experience to back it up.  Well, if an officer came from the ranks, especially the same trade he/she used to work in, the "ol' noodle" is going to be able to put 1 and 2 together, and understand what it truly takes to put a project/mission together; not just what it looks like on paper.

The officer with experience as an NCM/NCO is more apt to take better 'care' of his/her troops, because they've had the opportunity to see and experience the welfare consequences of an officer that didn't take good care of the troops.  When I was on the receiving end of mistreatment, I always promised myself that one day if I was in the officer's shoes, I wouldn't do things like 'this or that' that needlessly jerked around the troops.  I'm not going to go in detail here, because every trade experiences different things, but those of you that are in or come from the ranks, you know what I'm talking about.

*Cons:*

As far as trade knowledge and the combined experience goes, I have only this to say regarding officers that come from the ranks (mainly for those that stick to the same trade that they were when they were from the enlisted side of the house).  An officer is supposed to be able to give orders, and trust that the NCO's will do the job to the officer's satisfaction.  If there is a minor, unforeseen problem along the way, the NCO should be able to adapt and overcome using their own judgement and experience, as long as it stays within the intent and guidelines of the officer issuing orders.  Because of our experience in the subject matter, we're more likely to be overcontrolling or micromanaging of taskings/missions because we think that we're also suited to solve these problems too, when really we should be stepping back and letting the NCO do their job.  The officer that is 'always getting in the way' appears not to trust the NCO's that work under the officer's command, even though he/she is only trying to 'help'. 

Next point being that an Officer who comes from the ranks may be prone to putting the men first all to often, when the mission must take precedence.  If the officer always thinks of a task at hand from a troop's perspective, then plans are often formulated based on what's best or most convenient for the troops, and not necessarily the mission.  Coddling your troops does good for no one in the long run, especially the task at hand.

_*I would like to remind the readership that I think a good/aware officer coming from the ranks will be able to excel these Pro's, and minimize the CON effects.*_

DIRECT ENTRY

*Pros:*

A newly minted officer who has little experience is more apt to work closely with his NCO's.  At the end of the day, the officer still calls the shots, but if he/she is good, they'll take into consideration what their NCO's tell them, as opposed to attacking the problem in their own way without any consideration from others.

A direct entry officer can easily separate him/herself from the people who work under them, because of the lack of connection coming from that side of the house.  Military life can be hard at times, and sometimes there's no easy way to get a task done.  As an officer, our loyalty must go up first before it can come back down.  I don't want to say that DEO officers show more loyalty to their superiors than ex-NCO officers, but I will say that it has to be more prevalent in the DEO's mind because that is encompasses the majority of what they've been taught.

*Cons:*

Due to a lack of connection or perhaps experience, there's more likelyhood that direct entry officers are more apt to please their superiors at the expense of their troops.  I could talk for hours on this subject, but I have a feeling that most of you know what I'm talking about, regardless of your trade.

______________________________________________

All in all, I think that an officer who spent time in the ranks makes a far better officer, especially in the first few years after commissioning.  Some of the best coffee break jokes are often at the expense of junior officers, so a little bit of experience and knowledge will go a long way at earning the confidence and respect of your troops.  Of course, not every rule applies to everyone; there's always some very valid exceptions.  My approach has been mainly from the Army end of things, so I would expect some variance between different elements.  Perhaps someone with a different perspective can shed light.


----------



## George Wallace

I would be interested what your opinions will be in a few years time, after you have progressed past the rank of 2Lt.

We can generalize all we want.  It is going to boil down a lot to all the factors, military and family, that have come into play in the development of any 'Leader'.

I have seen Cpl's become Officers, because they would never have been able to pass a CLC and become a Junior Leader.  Now they have managed to become officers.  I have seen Officers recruited right off the street who have problems because they are always  micro managing their troops.  Generalizations don't give a clear picture of what we have or get.

I do believe that we should be recruiting our officers from the graduates of the Junior and Senior Leadership Schools.  Give these proven 'entities' the option of rising through the 'Ranks' or becoming officers.  In the beginning it will be a drain on our Junior Leaders and a shortage of experienced officers, but time should sort that out.


----------



## GAP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do believe that we should be recruiting our officers from the graduates of the Junior and Senior Leadership Schools.  Give these proven 'entities' the option of rising through the 'Ranks' or becoming officers.



Is there any Armed Force that does do that?


----------



## noneck

PBI _Overall, my impression is that there is little or no real "leadership" in either the Police Service or the Fire Service, in a manner that we in the Army would recognize. The model seems to be a "management/worker" one, but is that really what these organizations need? Wouldn't they benefit from applying a bit more leadership by personal example/personal presence, and a bit less "management by memo", or are police and firefighters such different people that Army principles of leadership would not apply? (And, yes...I know their organizational structures are different from the Army-I get that part)._

Sir bang on! As a former reservist  infantry sgt,  I run into this on a daily basis. Thats all i'll say on the matter as I have been chastised in the past by the powers that be for commenting on this forum.

Noneck


----------



## Kat Stevens

"Next point being that an Officer who comes from the ranks may be prone to putting the men first all to often, when the mission must take precedence.  If the officer always thinks of a task at hand from a troop's perspective, then plans are often formulated based on what's best or most convenient for the troops, and not necessarily the mission.  Coddling your troops does good for no one in the long run, especially the task at hand."


  Ummm.... good NCOs already know the "mission, men, self"  mantra, wouldn't you think?


----------



## fraserdw

Gentlemen

I am from the ranks 10 Years PPCLI to Artillery Officer (10 years now).  I am not sure you would like officers from the ranks.  We, for the most part, do not put up with the same BS that RMC kids do.  We expect a salute not because we are superior but because it is the rules.  We are much more anal about the rules than the RMC kids.  But would propose we make a compromise in that we do not allow anyone to go to RMC until they have completed the officer training first.  Here at Gagetown the base is filled with Ocdts and 2Lts who purposely fail training in an effort to get re-classed to an easy occupation as a prelude to getting out with as much free education as possible.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Gentlemen
> I am from the ranks 10 Years PPCLI to Artillery Officer (10 years now).  I am not sure you would like officers from the ranks.  We, for the most part, do not put up with the same BS that RMC kids do.  We expect a salute not because we are superior but because it is the rules.  We are much more anal about the rules than the RMC kids..



...and I would offer THAT is exactly what the average young soldier wants.[even if at the time of lynching, it sucks ]
 There was NOTHING more frustrating than having a good hard rule carved in solid Jello.


----------



## Rhibwolf

Been there, done that, both as NCM and Officer.  
George makes a good point about generalizations, and there are good officers and bad ones, period.  
Admittedly, the Jr DEO/RMC types have a greater potential to be coffee break fodder, but we werent all that sharp as QL3 Ptes either.  How many youngsters get sent to the Q for a box of frequencies, or a can of muzzel velocity? (or a bucket of steam for the navy types).  All of us come into our own with experience, for good or for bad.  The NCM/Officer simply has a bit of a jump in this case, but it levels out soon, and then, the only thing that makes a good officer is that person's character - not his school, not his previous trade, and not even his desire to be a leader (wanting to be good isnt enough).  We have all had terrible leaders, both commissioned and otherwise.  In my opinion, if you are destined to be a good leader, then you will be one, regardless of rank.  
Should our officers all come from Leadership courses? Probably not. BUT, I do think they should all spend time in the trenches (or bilges)  If nothing, it gives them the perspective needed to lead, not on how to best treat the men, but from the aspect of what works, and what wont.


----------



## Hatdag

Reason for the generalisation is that really, there is no hard set rule here.  I tried to make that clear.  And yes, many other factors come into play (family, location, etc.).  In my own opinion (and that of those others who have mentioned), screening troops to become officers once they've completed some form of leadership training is definitely something we should be considering.


----------



## Echo9

Nice resurrected topic here...

Now, for my 2 cents:

1.  There's certainly something to be gained from spending time in the ranks prior to commissioning.  I didn't myself, but I certainly trained with a bunch of people who did.  They were almost invariably better prepared for training.  Most of them were better prepared to become platoon/ troop commanders.

2.  The guys who came from the ranks often have problems with continuing to fraternize with the troops (no, not that kind) as if they were still one of them.  For that reason, I think that any of these plans would need to include compulsory changes in regiment upon commissioning.

3.  There are some other down sides to commissioning privates- In a lot of cases, guys who spent time in the ranks rely on their own judgement of events too much and don't spend as much time finding out how decisions are playing out on their own soldiers.  Overall, this is minor in comparison to the 

4.  Beyond the platoon level, there's less of a difference in performance- the character of the individual comes through to a greater extent, and the kind of experience that you gain as a private starts to matter less.  In fact, it's been my experience that officers with significant time in the ranks tend to top out earlier in their careers.  Clearly, there are some important exceptions to this observation.

5.  Our army is built on the culture of separate officer/ soldier classes.  I'm generally against changes to underlying structures unless they can be supported by substantial performance improvements.  All too frequently, change for the sake of change sacrifices things that were considered peripheral but are nonetheless important.

6.  The crux of whether you think this is a good idea or not depends on your view of the importance of the platoon commander.  I've had a number of bosses who believe that platoon commander is a learning position- you spend time there to learn how to do real officer jobs.  That's going too far, but there's some truth in it.   Too many people who argue in favour of time in the ranks for officers focus too much of the argument on how that officer will be as a platoon commander.  I can't disagree with that on the whole.  I also can appreciate that the platoon commander is the only officer that most people in the army will work closely with, and that they are not training aids for officer development.  In the end, though, the measure of a good officer is more borne out through the whole career, and not in its first year or two.


On a slightly related topic, I would say that there's a big difference between the kind of officer that you get out of RMC and what you get from the ranks or from the DEO stream.  In the former, you frequently get people who are playing out their string in return for the "Free Education" that they were sold on.  In the latter, you get people who have made a conscious career choice to become leaders in the army.  

It's a dirty point to make, but I'm pretty sure that the last CDS who came from RMC was Jean Boyle....




oh, and pbi, didn't McKenzie spend his time in the ranks/ jr offr at the QOR and then went to the Airbourne? I thought that only put up the Patricia's cap badge when he became CO.


----------



## xFusilier

MGen MacKenzie did not serve in the ranks he was commisioned a 2lt in the Queens Own Rifles through the University Officer Training Corps.


----------



## Journeyman

For what it's worth, Gen MacKenzie didn't serve in the Airborne either. At the time of the disbandment, he asked the CO (then-LCol Kenward) for permission to wear the Regimental tie since he was getting a lot of media coverage at the time. This was, I gather, to show his support for the Airborne and/or disdain for the government's decision.


----------



## eeyore063

This is definitely a touchy subject I'm sure, and I will admit that my opinion is jaded and infantry specific, but here is my 2 cents ...

Firstly I am a firm believer in the old saying of walking a mile in another man's shoes before judging him. For officers I think that the limited amount of experience they receive during their Phase trg is not enough experience to give them an adequate base of knowledge for some of the tasks they will face. We have all had that young new guy set un-realistic timings for having those trenches to stage 2. 

Secondly you have those coming out of the Direct entry program that feel the need to prove themselves as soon as they show up. These are the guys that feel it unnecessary to listen to their Pl WO and the experience he has backing him up because they feel it necessary to take control and assert dominance to the point of calling black white. Now I am not saying that you wouldn't see this from a UTPNCM but the chances are that if they didn't have the experience they would listen to those that do. As well those with no prior Army experience have to enter into a Pl that has known each other and it is up to them to fit into the mix. The commissioned from the ranks members already know what to expect and have some credibility with the Pl just from having been from the ranks. 

Really it all comes down to leaving the GOD complex at home, draw on the experience you have available and gain the trust and faith of the rank and file. Either case can do this although I think the DE officer will have to work longer and harder to achieve this.


----------



## Cronicbny

Here's some added CFR info (NAVRES, but possibly related to other Components)

1. You cannot CFR into a different Component. If you are a primary reservist NCIOP, you must become a Reserve INTO, MARS or LOGO (PAFO as well now that we have those). Therefore a PO2 NAVCOMM Reserve cannot CFR as a RegF MARS Officer

2. You have "pay protection" (aka Vested Rights) and will be paid at your current level until promoted (or IPCed) to a higher rate of pay

3. All NAVRES pers granted a CFR are credited with IAP but must do BOTC and a short IAP Bypass (Knifey-Spooney) course. Exceptions are those of PO1 Rank or better or PERHAPS those holding a valid, complete, ILQ

4. PO1 and below are comissioned as SLT. Above, as Lt(N)

5. NCMs previously trained under OSQ/AB or NETP will be credited with NETPO (there is some debate as to whether you need sea time in good numbers here)

6. During IAP and BOTC you will be a NCdt until graduation

7. You MUST ensure your MPRR is up to date with any "Officer Equivalent" courses (CSMWC, CIMWC or MWBC) prior to your BPSO Interview, otherwise it could take a while to be granted equivalency.

This information shouldn't be treated as perfect... just my experience so far.


----------



## Cronicbny

Just some added info:

1) NETPO bypass will not be granted without a PLA being conducted (6 weeks of being paid to enjoy summer at home sounded good to me so whatever)

2) Pay protection simply doesn't exist. The new CBI outlines pay rates for CFR candidates and in some cases it's not pretty (oh well)

3) You wear your substantive rank throughout training and are effectively commissioned when the assessment board sends the message (caveat upcoming)

4) You CANNOT accept your commission and remain employed Class B or C in the same billet. The only available options are to Return to your home unit or revert to your previous rank until your IAP bypass starts. Additionally, if you choose not to return to your home unit, you lose the seniority assigned to you on the message and your effective date of commissioning becomes the day before your IAP bypass or the date you ceased working in your previous billet. This an issue I'm still "working through the system" though to be honest it doesn't make much sense given the NAVRES manning crunch to force core crew pers to RTU

Now then, off to more NETPO.... 

Can anyone tell me what Starboard is again? /jk

EDIT: For the record, NAVRES only managed to CFR 6 candidates this year... three from one unit (NAN)! Me thinks the message relating to it needs to be better understood by some people (supervisors especially).


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

I just CEOTP'd from NavComm to Arty Officer and the following applies

1. Must be Substantive LS/CPL or above
2. IAP Bypass will be granted for JLC/PLQ/JNCO
3. IAP and BOTC Bypass will be granted for ILQ/SLC/SRNCO
4. Upon completion of BMOQ (IAP and BOTC ) Commisioning in the rank of 2Lt Back dated to the day of appointment to OCdt
5. Army Phase II (CAP) No such thing as CAP(Reserve) or CAP (Regular) its all the same now no more modular courses
6. (ARTY Specific) DP1 Common
7 DP2 Field
8 Promotion to Lt
10 Off to a horse regiment


----------



## MPS

I am interested in joining the infantry as a regular. I am 25 years old, have a bachelors and have always been a hard worker. 
I qualify for a commission, but I am wary of going into a trade as a "manager" when I have no experience in it.
I understand there are pay differences and the working conditions are different, but my gut would tell me to go NCM and then
down the road apply for a commission. 
I am seeking advice and opinions on this subject.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Career Debate Officer vs. NCM  --  http://army.ca/forums/threads/22686.0.html

UP FROM THE RANKS! (a lengthy and very worthwhile thread discussing officer entry programs, from a starting point of view considering prior service as a Non-Commissioned Member (NCM)) -- http://army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html

Recruiting Forum Introduction and FAQ: PLEASE READ FIRST AND BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD! - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Search page  - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search

Welcome to Army.ca/Milnet.ca/etc.


----------



## footsoldier32

MPS said:
			
		

> I qualify for a commission, but I am wary of going into a trade as a "manager" when I have no experience in it.



MPS, as an officer in the Infantry, I will give you my opinion on why officer is the best way to go.  The Combat Arms are the only ones where Officers are leaders who really get to get into the mud and fight with the soldiers (NCM).  This way I get the best of both worlds.  The key to your question is not about better benefits or pay or even the fact that you have authority of some really great soldiers but if you want to lead.  Please get it straight right from the first, we officers in the Combat Arms are not managers.  You will start off with a Pl size organisation where you "LEAD" not manage soldiers.  The downfall of going Officer is that at times you will have to be admin focused or the soldiers that you lead will not get the courses, good goes, or leadership that they desire and undoubtedly deserve.  If you go NCM, you get to do some pretty great stuff without the larger responsibilities (to start off).  You Pte and Cpl Soldiers out there, don't get me wrong, but early on in their careers, they have few responsibilities other than mastering their specific trade, showing up on time and ready for work and giving their superiors the 110% that we are getting.  Once they go beyond that, they start taking on a lot more responsibilities and depending on their Officers and Snr NCO's, they can be given a lot of leeway and trusted on to do some pretty tough things.

When we are in garrison, the administration falls on our shoulders and we make sure that the soldiers careers are progressing well and they get the necessary course to advance in their respective trades.  When we hit the field, the admin falls to the WO's and we as officer have to make the tactical decisions and lead from the front.  It is the best job in the world.  Know that at times you won't get to do all of the cool things, like sniper, LAV Dvr, Gnr, C6 Gnr, etc, but just knowing that you command soldiers that can do these things and they are there to get the job done for you is payment beyond means.

So, there are benefits to both worlds, but I strongly believe that if you are going to choose, then you need to decide for yourself if you want to be a leader of soldiers or if you just want to be a soldier.  Two very different things.  Good luck and fire any more questions my way if you want to.


----------



## MPS

Thanks for the reply footsoldier32... i understand my misuse of the term "managers" in this context, but I was having trouble getting a straight answer from the recruiters... 
basically what I was interested in was this... as an officer what is the nature of my field work? I understand a third of the time (according to CFRC) I would be in the field, but I was basically wondering if I would actually be working alongside my men... maybe not digging a trench or getting any of the specialised training an NCM would get, but at least to be out there with them and sharing the same experiences...
The recruiter was mentioning in his 22 year career spending about 8 years in battalion and the rest in other roles.... I'm not entirely sure what that means at the end of the day...


----------



## Greymatters

MCG said:
			
		

> The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."   This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).
> 
> Officers are the senior leaders of the forces.  In the Army they start as troop/platoon commanders and can raise to the hights of general.  Officers will also fill the bulk of staff jobs through various headquaters.
> 
> NCMs at the junior level are the workers of the Army.  However, as they progress they also become increasingly involved in leadership & managment.  At the platoon/troop level, the WO (an NCM) overseas much of the managment issues.



A little late, but since somebody had opened the barn door...  +1 to that!


----------



## Greymatters

footsoldier32 said:
			
		

> MPS, as an officer in the Infantry, I will give you my opinion on why officer is the best way to go.  The Combat Arms are the only ones where Officers are leaders who really get to get into the mud and fight with the soldiers (NCM).  This way I get the best of both worlds.  The key to your question is not about better benefits or pay or even the fact that you have authority of some really great soldiers but if you want to lead.  Please get it straight right from the first, we officers in the Combat Arms are not managers.  You will start off with a Pl size organisation where you "LEAD" not manage soldiers.  The downfall of going Officer is that at times you will have to be admin focused or the soldiers that you lead will not get the courses, good goes, or leadership that they desire and undoubtedly deserve.  If you go NCM, you get to do some pretty great stuff without the larger responsibilities (to start off).  You Pte and Cpl Soldiers out there, don't get me wrong, but early on in their careers, they have few responsibilities other than mastering their specific trade, showing up on time and ready for work and giving their superiors the 110% that we are getting.  Once they go beyond that, they start taking on a lot more responsibilities and depending on their Officers and Snr NCO's, they can be given a lot of leeway and trusted on to do some pretty tough things.
> 
> When we are in garrison, the administration falls on our shoulders and we make sure that the soldiers careers are progressing well and they get the necessary course to advance in their respective trades.  When we hit the field, the admin falls to the WO's and we as officer have to make the tactical decisions and lead from the front.  It is the best job in the world.  Know that at times you won't get to do all of the cool things, like sniper, LAV Dvr, Gnr, C6 Gnr, etc, but just knowing that you command soldiers that can do these things and they are there to get the job done for you is payment beyond means.
> 
> So, there are benefits to both worlds, but I strongly believe that if you are going to choose, then you need to decide for yourself if you want to be a leader of soldiers or if you just want to be a soldier.  Two very different things.  Good luck and fire any more questions my way if you want to.



I like your writeup. I only wish I had as many officers who thought like you did 20 years ago.  It probably differs from unit to unit and base to base, but the bunch I dealt with usually just 'managed' and left the so-called career progression to the WO's.  Mind you this was pre-1990 before many of them rediscovered all over again, IMO, that they had to lead not manage. 

I would also add that NCM's often get heavy 'leading' roles put upon them, depending on what trade you are in and what unit you are with. A corporal in one unit can be the coffee boy slash toilet cleaner, while in another has unheard of senior responsibilities.


----------



## medaid

I agree with you GreyMatter.

I will speak from my side of the house... that I had left.

In the medical world, the HCAs are the officers who command, lead and plan. Unfortunately there is such a great disconnect between the MedTech (NCM) that we lead, and unless you came from the ranks and decided to keep current medically on your own, it was tough for most HCAs to know exactly HOW to promote their soldiers career progression when it came to medical courses and such.

It didn't help that HCAs were prohibited from touching patients, other then to render the basic battlefield first aid that we've all been taught (you remember those? the StJA ones?)

Officers and NCMs both play important roles. However, officers need to realize one important point. Treat your troops with the respect that they deserve. Gone are the days of Colonial military, and one must always remember that the troops may survive without an Officer, but an officer is nothing without his/her troops.

Best of luck in your decision!


----------



## Greymatters

MedTech said:
			
		

> Officers and NCMs both play important roles. However, officers need to realize one important point. Treat your troops with the respect that they deserve. Gone are the days of Colonial military, and one must always remember that the troops may survive without an Officer, but an officer is nothing without his/her troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preaching to the choir, brother!  Lets all hear a halelujah!    :blotto:
Click to expand...


----------



## vangemeren

I was wondering why I can't put both officer trades and NCM trades, in my trade choices on the application? I ask this because the recruiter that was looking over the application stopped and pointed out that it had to be one or the other, not both.


----------



## Greymatters

I would think it is kind of obvious... think about what would happen if you didnt get your primary choice...


----------



## armyvern

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> I was wondering why I can't put both officer trades and NCM trades, in my trade choices on the application? I ask this because the recruiter that was looking over the application stopped and pointed out that it had to be one or the other, not both.



Different enrollment requirements and criteria to be met to qualify for enrollment, different enrollment contract, different pension plan, whole different manner of processing the paperwork through the system ...

just to name a few major differences.

You need to decide: Commissioned *or* Non-Commissioned. Two totally different beasts, process' and requirements.


----------



## footsoldier32

Roger that to all the latest inserts.  I guess that I didn't make it clear enough when I said it earlier...You need to make a decision.  If you are having a difficult time being decisive, then maybe that is telling you something.  Being an Officer in the Combat Arms means that you must be decisive and not afraid to make the tough decisions.  As to your question about field time...the recruiter is right in theory, a lot of an Officer's career is not spent in the field,  but that is so dependent on so many factors that I will not name them all here.  I have a friend who is going on his 5th year in the Battalion as a Pl Comd, another just posted out was a MCpl in the PPCLI and then Commissioned from the ranks and became a Royal, he had 5 years as a Pl Comd (both are and were Recce Pl Comds) and then there are others who spend 1-3 years in their regimental posting in Battalion and then off to other jobs.  It depends on how competent you are, but at the end of the day everyone progresses and you have to do the staff jobs to be able to the best job in the world.  Just know that if your soldiers are in the field you had damn well be there beside them or in front of them leading them and digging your own trench.

Afghanistan - My Pl played a huge role in building the Strong Points.  We all dug bunkers, filled sandbags, knocked down walls and generally blew shit up.  And to prove another point earlier...I actually sent Pte's out on dismounted security Patrols for Engr's clearing fields of fire.  And you know what, he came back to me after and brought up some valid and well thought out AAR points.  It depends on the soldier...some are good for the menial task, and others are going places and will end up like great Snr NCO's like CWO Bobby Girouard, WO Frank Mellish and WO Rick Nolan (RIP).  Now, I am a staff weenie for a year...not fun, but I still work with soldiers and I am playing an integral role in prepping the next BG for deployment...so my job still centers around the bayonet and the fighting edge (Soldiers).

From an earlier post, thanks for the complement.  I had some pretty great Snr NCO's who have guided me well and I wouldn't be where I am today as a man and an Officer if I hadn't learned from some great men.  For those new guys, just be careful...not everyone is great...it's usually the quiet professional that you can look to for advice and they won't lead you wrong.

To all, have a Royal Day.
It's a great day to be in the Army and Pro Patria!


----------



## vangemeren

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Different enrollment requirements and criteria to be met to qualify for enrollment, different enrollment contract, different pension plan, whole different manner of processing the paperwork through the system ...
> 
> just to name a few major differences.
> 
> You need to decide: Commissioned *or* Non-Commissioned. Two totally different beasts, process' and requirements.



I made the decision on the spot, I just god rid of my third choice. The SGT didn't give me a reason, but I figured that it had something to do with that, Thanks Vern.


----------



## Goose

Hey everyone... I'm relatively new to the forum and have never posted before, so bare with me. I've got a few questions that I'd like some help with, if anyone's got the time and/or answers. (I've searched the forums for the info. that I want, and haven't found anything particularly relevant...) Anyways, here's my scenario; I have a bachelors with a double major, and had been accepted into the forces as a med tech. However, I cancelled the process because during my interview I had told the recruiter that I wasn't going to go anywhere until april (after my graduation) and they had sent in the paperwork early anyways. Well, now I'm almost done the school thing, and am taking a step back to re-evaluate my options- just to make sure that I've made the best decision possible. I have a passion for being a pilot, but am very aware of the chances of getting accepted (less than 5%)  and also for SAR tech for which the medic thing would be a big help (I seem to have a knack for the impossible). However, I've got this degree, and don't know if I want to bypass the opportunity to be an officer (though, i know, i can transfer over in a few years). I'm a very hands-on person, and I dont know if an officers position is going to be enough 'down-and-in-it' for me. I guess what this is all asking is if I should go straight to officer or take my time and get some NCM experience under my belt first. I've got to re-write my aptitude test in order to do the officer route too (I scored one point under the requirement, go figure). Is it worth it? are the lifestyles really that different? are NCM"s really treated that bad? (I'm very much a 'why' person, and don't take orders particularly well- but could if I had too). Thanks everyone, sorry for starting a new topic for this, it would just be nice to have something directly applicable to myself.


----------



## benny88

There are people far more knowledgable people here who have NCM and Officer experience who will be able to help you out. My only point is: if you have a passion for being a pilot, don't let (your perceived) odds stand in your way. Nothing to lose by trying, and if you don't at least try you may regret it.



Edit: Welcome to Army.ca!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Goose,

we can't make that decision for you.  There's plenty of threads here that discuss the differences between officer and NCM programs, but only you can evaluate that information in relation to your own desires.

See the recruiting FAQ~ here to start with - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103985.html#msg103985

Firstly, you need to pass that CFAT with a score making you eligible for officer training, and whatever score you get will dictate what trades are open to you (as either an officer or NCM).

And one more thing, don't generalize such things as this, it only invites unnecessary tangents:



			
				Goose said:
			
		

> are NCM"s really treated that bad?



For all other respondents, stick to the purpose of the thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Goose

Thanks for the replies, I really do appreciate them. I understand that this decision is ultimately mine, and that I am the one that is going to have to live with it. Just to clarify, the aptitude mark for officer won't be a big deal- so the only think I am really wondering about would be where someone that is interested in the hands-on training should go. Basically, are there any comissioned jobs in the CF that are close to the intensity of the NCM world (like a pilot would be). also, is it a big issue to transfer to an officer after I put a few years under my belt as an NCM? that way, I suppose I could get the best of both worlds, and do my best to give SAR tech a shot.


----------



## Good2Golf

Goose, are you looking for any particular type of challenge, or just something that involves lots of activity or hands on? Would you want to use your degree at least in part in what you would want to do?  SAR Tech would certainly be a rewarding challenge.  If you do a search for "SAR Tech" you will find a number of posts related to the new direct entry process for SAR Techs. Up until recently, the SAR Tech trade was only accessible through remustering from another trade.  You will see information from some of our resident experts -- kjgully is one of the go to guys here for all things SAR Tech.  Best of luck in your efforts.

G2G


----------



## dimsum

Goose said:
			
		

> Basically, are there any comissioned jobs in the CF that are close to the intensity of the NCM world (like a pilot would be). also, is it a big issue to transfer to an officer after I put a few years under my belt as an NCM?



While most of the intensity is less physical and more mental, there are certainly stressful officer occupations.  Combat Arms and MARS (MARS 4 and the Fleet Navigating Officer course can be quite intense!), just to name a few.  Not completely in my lane, but I'm sure some would say that AEC can certainly be intense.


----------



## Goose

well- I think i've got it figured out- infantry officer- seems to fit the criteria for exactally what I want... question, are their many female infantry officers? and what is the requirement on the CFAT for this position? I'm writing it in a few weeks- was one point short of officer last time I took a shot at it, but honestly, I haden't prepared at all for it...


----------



## dangerboy

Goose said:
			
		

> well- I think i've got it figured out- infantry officer- seems to fit the criteria for exactally what I want... question, are their many female infantry officers?



There are not many female Infantry officers, but then there are also not many female infantry NCMs either, but don't let that be a deciding factor in your choice.


----------



## benny88

dangerboy said:
			
		

> There are not many female Infantry officers, but then there are also not many female infantry NCMs either, but don't let that be a deciding factor in your choice.




  On my 13 km march last summer, out of 52 OCdts, two fell out, and neither of them were women, of which we had 7 or 8. The two who fell out were perfectly capable of walking the 13km, but soft, and some of the people who stayed in were less than 110 lbs and carrying more than half their body weight. It's all in your head.


----------



## RetiredRoyal

my opinion based on my 14yrs as an NCM both in the Infantry and Air Force. If it was my son/daughter I'd counsel them to  become an officer. Officers have a far better life in the military. All the way from general pay and gratuities to sleeping conditions in the field and attendance on parade and drill. Life as an officer is good.


----------



## Goose

thanks a ton. I'm definately (CFAT willing) going to DEO for infantry or armour... suppose that means I should hit the gym... :-\ thanks again- real, 'been there' perspective is just what I was looking for.


----------



## kincanucks

_Officers have a far better life in the military.           ...........to sleeping conditions in the field _ 

Excuse me?


----------



## armyvern

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _Officers have a far better life in the military.           ...........to sleeping conditions in the field _
> 
> Excuse me?



Especially given that his 14 years were as a NCM ... and none as an officer. I guess it's simply his perception of how good the Officer Corps must have it compared to him. It's certainly not experience as an Officer speaking.

Here's my perception on Officers ...

Our Officers slept in the same conditions in the field that we did. Rain, snow, sleet, hail. Hooches etc. Even lost to me playing chiclet poker and were relegated to the shitty stove-watchs while I (and other NCMs) snugged up in my bag nice and warm in my flannels. And, it is some bitch to have to go out and refill the naptha at -35, spark up the immersion heaters etc ... and ...

Higher pay? Sure, they are a higher rank. Some NCMs get higher pay than other NCMs ... because they are higher rank levels too. Funny how that works.  Better perks? Sure ... some NCMs go to different Mess', get to write less PERs, are relegated to "mandatory attendance at coffee breaks" (RSM hours), dig trenchs less & less, cam vehicles less and less, do manual labour less & less ... the list could go on ...


----------



## medaid

Different sleeping conditions he says? Wow... I wish that be true! Yarr. I work on the EHIBS along side of our Bos'ns. I get rained on hailed on and snowed on just like they do. Maybe not as often as they do, but I still do. I rucked along side of my troops, set up the same facilities, and stood the same shifts or watches as they do. You have to see it this way. SNCOs and Snr O types do different jobs then thei subordinates. Even in the civie world management has a different role then the work force. Both has its perks and its down side. Officer down side? So much paper work!!


----------



## Shamrock

In the troop leader's crew, I often laid out the troopie's sleeping kit and packed it up for them.  This wasn't out of any sense of undue loyalty or even because I particularly liked them -- this was because they'd often return from orders, etc. a few hours after the rest of us had gone to sleep on the back deck and had to get up before the rest of us and I didn't want them waking the rest of the crew fumbling around with their sleeping kit.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I'll throw my two cents in from a career officer's POV - such as it is, remembering I write as an armour officer.


As an officer, you're "on" all the time.  You may not realize it, but the soldiers are watching you and judging your character and capabilities 24/7.  You have to measure up to THEIR standards first and foremost.  Your conduct has to be an example and above reproach.  Some have failed in this regard, much to the CF's cost.

In the Armour Corps, living and sleeping conditions certainly aren't better - RetiredRoyal has obviously forgotten his time in the infantry.  In a tank, you're first and foremost part of a crew, a very tight little team of you and three Cpl/Ptes.  You may be running around getting receiving orders, getting your orders done and the 100 and 1 things an officer has to do, but you _still_ should be helping find all the crap that the monster at the bottom of the turret has eaten, or pulling track because _your_ crew needs the help.  It may not be your primary duty, but God help you if you shirk "dirty work" because you think being an officer is all white gloves, tea and fox hunting. Shamrock has pointed out what a good crew will do for a very busy officer.  A good officer will deserve such treatment. 

Much more of an officer's time - in any trade - is spent on administration.  You'll be expected to write and to become quite literate.  Those who take the time to do so serve their soldiers by drafting properly written requests, orders, personnel evaluation reports and the like.  More importantly, good administration could well mean life or death on operations.

The days of "rank having its privileges" are fading.  I'm not so sure that "life as an officer is good" anymore - there are few perks that come solely with rank these days.

Officers serve much of their careers "extra regimentally employed" (ERE).  This means postings away from regimental or battalion life to training or staff jobs elsewhere.  Initially, your chances of returning to your "home" unit are good when posted away.  But as you move up the rank ladder, time away from the unit can increase to the point where it no longer exists.  After all, there are only five or so Major's jobs in each Combat Arms unit and only one Lieutenant-Colonel.  Where are all the others?  Doing staff, training and administrative jobs across Canada, looking wistfully at that picture of the strapping young Lieutenant with their troop of 15 - 20 years ago as they contemplate another day of fighting "political" fires from a cubicle on the 18th floor of National Defence Headquarters....  NCMs are also posted ERE, of course, but their chances of going "home" are significantly higher throughout their careers.

At the end of the day, the biggest difference between a junior officer and a junior NCM is responsibility.  As an officer, you - personally - are responsible, no matter what, for your soldiers, for their well-being and for their operational readiness.  The Commissioning Scroll (and I'm looking at mine right now) is quite clear - even in its archaic language - in that regard.  If you cannot step up and take responsibility _right from the start_, then being an officer isn't for you.

For what it's worth...

TR


----------



## Infanteer

Here is a response I sent to a guy who asked about the Infantry and officer/NCM stuff.

The way I look at it, the main job of an Infantry Officer is the same at any level and any rank, from Platoon Commander to CO. He is there to set the conditions for the Privates, Corporals and Sergeants to win the battle. Whether it be as a Platoon Commander, where you give tactical direction to your NCOs or as a Battalion staff officer where you do everything in your power to ensure the riflemen are set loose properly, an Infantry Officer is fairly "hands off" when it comes to "trigger time" (or whatever you want to call it). One of my instructors on my Dismounted Platoon Commander Course was a platoon commander who was in Afghanistan and he said he only fired 3 rounds in all the TIC's he was in.

I suspect what you are really looking for is "how often can I look forward to being deployed outside the wire with the troops?" In the Infantry, look to Platoon Commander, LAV Captain, and Recce Platoon Commander as the three big ones below the rank of Major. If you occupy these positions it is then a matter of timing. If your battalion is going overseas, you're the man in the seat, if not, so be it. There are some other positions Army wide that involve time outside (OMLT, etc, etc) but these are outside of the Infantry-specific world. As mentioned, there is more fieldtime available to those inclined to move to CANSOFCOM.

Infantry jobs aside, there is the notion of becoming an officer and if it is what you really want. My advice, don't make your decision simply on whether ROTP can pay your bills. There is enough guys around with commissions that aren't 100% in the game (I'm looking at some right now) and we don't need anymore of them. The troops don't need them either. If you want to spend as much time as you can in the field and like getting your boots muddy, go as an NCM. You'll most likely be deployed every 2 years if you desire to go.

If you feel you have the abilities to stand up infront of 35 soldiers, most with more experience then you, and tell them to "follow me" (which requires the parts to convince them) and if you are willing to accept the additional burdens that this privilege demands (while they're sleeping, you're planning - sleep and command don't usually go together) AND if you're willing to accept that your skills as an Officer will demand your employment in a "hands off, brains on" form, most likely away from the very tip of the spear, then perhaps you should give the Infantry School a shot.

Take it for what it's worth.
Infanteer


----------



## smitty66

I guess I'll add my 2 cents  to the growing pile of change...

I've seen good and bad examples of both Officers and NCM's. Unfortunately sometimes the bad examples from each Mess can tend to colour ones perceptions.

As Vern mentioned the good officers are the ones that lead by example (i.e. took the high profile 0300-0400 stove watches). I've worked for an OC on an exercises that got 2 -3hrs of sleep a night while the Ptes got 6! There are instances however, where Officers can use the privilege afforded their rank, and acquire a better sleeping arrangement etc.  It all boils down to professionalism, personal integrity and leadership or lack thereof.

NCM's are no different. There are pers that claim ignorance "I'm just a Private!" after doing something that common sense and training should have dictated wasn't a great idea.  I've also seen Privates take charge in situations where direction was needed. 

I tend to believe that the career choice between Officer and NCM should be dictated by what you expect out of the job. I'm of the opinion that Officers plan, Snr NCOs implement the plan, and Jr Ranks carry out the tasks dictated by Snr NCOs IAW the plan. Depending on where in the food chain you want to be is up to you. Membership in any Mess has it's privileges and "privileges".


----------



## traviss-g

Hi,
So I realize this might seem like a very stupid question but what is the difference? I understand that to be a comissioned officer you have a degree. But i have a few more questions:
1. Is there a point where an NCO can no longer be promoted and if so is it lower than that of a comissioned officer.
   A) If there is a "ceiling" for NCOs can they get around it i.e get a university degree?
2. (my understanding of the chain of command in the army is very limited at best) Is there a difference betweeen a lets say sgt who is an NCO and a sgt who is a commisioned officer.
3. What is the difference in duties performed by NCOs and comissioned officers?
4. A little off topic but could someone provide me with a link to better understand the different ranks?
Thanks for reading,
Travis


----------



## joonrooj

I found this very confusing at first as well,
but basically there are two rank structures in the CF:
the NCM and NCO:
Private, Corporal, Master Corporal, Sergeant, Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer, and Chief Warrant Officer.
and the Commissioned:
Officer Cadet (not commissioned, basically a private who is learning to become an officer), 2nd Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General.

Here is a link that explains this and lists it out:
http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Rank_Structure_of_the_CF
As for your other questions, I`m sure I would bollocks them up and offend someone, someone will be along shortly to help


----------



## traviss-g

Wow thanks you very much answered alot of my questions. It is also nice to know i'm not the first to be confused by this  . One more question, does that mean that an officer cadet can tell a Chief Warrant Officer what to do?


----------



## Run away gun

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Hi,
> So I realize this might seem like a very stupid question but what is the difference? I understand that to be a comissioned officer you have a degree. But i have a few more questions:
> 1. Is there a point where an NCO can no longer be promoted and if so is it lower than that of a comissioned officer.
> A) If there is a "ceiling" for NCOs can they get around it i.e get a university degree?
> 2. (my understanding of the chain of command in the army is very limited at best) Is there a difference betweeen a lets say sgt who is an NCO and a sgt who is a commisioned officer.
> 3. What is the difference in duties performed by NCOs and comissioned officers?
> 4. A little off topic but could someone provide me with a link to better understand the different ranks?
> Thanks for reading,
> Travis



1. Chief Warrant Officer(Chief Petty Officer 1st Class), also refered to as Regimental Sargent Major.
a) NCOs can get around the ceiling by commissioning from the ranks (CFR as it is commonly refered to), whereby they take a commission, and are automatically given the rank of Lieutenant or Captain and continue their progress through the officer rank structure. They do not need a degree, however CFR is usually only offered to Senior NCOs ( Sgts and above).

2. Sgts are NCOs, not commissioned officers. The rank structures are totally different, all Captains are commissioned, just as all Sgts are NCOs.

3. To put it simply, commissioned officers draw up and give orders, NCOs execute them. Commissioned officers are generally at the top of the chain of command of their organization (their platoon, company, battalion..) and report to the CO (Commanding officer, another commissioned officer, usually a Lt-Col) on the success of the mission/tasking. The NCOs are there to ensure the work is completed and that discipline is maintained throughout. It is mainly Corporals and Privates who carry out the work.


----------



## traviss-g

Alright! This has got to be one of the best forums ever! I posted this question and within about two hours I had all the answers i wanted and more! Thank you guys very much!   ;D Does this mean an officer cadet can tell a Chief WO what to do? also is that the right abbreviation or could i just use CWO or should i type Chief warrant officer?


----------



## Michael OLeary

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Alright! This has got to be one of the best forums ever! I posted this question and within about two hours I had all the answers i wanted and more! Thank you guys very much!   ;D Does this mean an officer cadet can tell a Chief WO what to do? also is that the right abbreviation or could i just use CWO or should i type Chief warrant officer?



In theory, yes, an Officer Cadet could be in a position where he/she might "tell" a Chief Warrant Officer (abbreviated CWO) what to do.  In reality, however, the likelihood of the two being in such a situation is extremely rare.  If, by some chance, an officer cadet was placed in a position of authority over a CWO it would likely be in a very temporary situation such as an acting Command Post Duty Officer (or some such appointment) and circumstances would be such that both were fully aware of the exact limitations of that authority with respect to their particular duties at the moment.

I expect you are picturing in your head a brand new shiny Officer Cadet arriving at a training base and meeting a CWO who would have to do anything he ordered.  You can dispense with that image, it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Loachman

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Does this mean an officer cadet can tell a Chief WO what to do?



Not normally. An Officer Cadet has no authority. Any attempt would cause amusement to any witnesses.



			
				traviss-g said:
			
		

> also is that the right abbreviation or could i just use CWO or should i type Chief warrant officer?



CWO for short.

And, to gently correct a previous poster, a CWO is not necessarily a Regimental Sergeant Major. If wearing green, yes, if light blue, see "amusement to any witnesses" if addressed as such.


----------



## traviss-g

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I expect you are picturing in your head a brand new shiny Officer Cadet arriving at a training base and meeting a CWO who would have to do anything he ordered.



Haha yea, you read my mind! Thanks, again, I really appreciate the answers. 



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And, to gently correct a previous poster, a CWO is not necessarily a Regimental Sergeant Major. If wearing green, yes, if light blue, see "amusement to any witnesses" if addressed as such.



I'm sure if I understood half those words I would be on the floor laughing  !


----------



## Loachman

traviss-g said:
			
		

> I'm sure if I understood half those words I would be on the floor laughing  !



Not really.

"RSM" is an appointment, ie a job title. An RSM is the highest non-commissioned rank in an Army unit, and has been likened to God. His rank is usually CWO. He is responsible for many things, including discipline and morale of those NCMs junior to him. He is usually found very close to the CO.

His equivalent in an air force unit is known as the Squadron Chief Warrant Officer, or SCWO (sometimes referred to, outside of his presence, as the "Screw"). Call him an RSM and correction will be immediate, loud, and possibly almost as colourful as an RSM's correction.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not really.
> 
> "RSM" is an appointment, ie a job title. An RSM is the highest non-commissioned rank in an Army unit, and has been likened to God. His rank is usually CWO. He is responsible for many things, including discipline and morale of those NCMs junior to him. He is usually found very close to the CO.
> 
> His equivalent in an air force unit is known as the Squadron Chief Warrant Officer, or SCWO (sometimes referred to, outside of his presence, as the "Screw"). Call him an RSM and correction will be immediate, loud, and possibly almost as colourful as an RSM's correction.



And to make things a bit more confusing SCWO could also mean School Chief Warrant Officer


----------



## greenjacket

Is BSM the right short form for Brigade  Sgt-Maj or is his official title something else, and what about Area RSM's would it be something like LFCASM or something, i know that sounds crazy but I'm just wondering if their is a different title for them other then RSM


----------



## Harley Sailor

And that doesn't even count what you call a Chief in the Navy


----------



## Harley Sailor

If you want to look at the difference between NCO and Comissioned officers all you have to do is look at Management and and workers in most big companies.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

greenjacket said:
			
		

> Is BSM the right short form for Brigade  Sgt-Maj or is his official title something else, and what about Area RSM's would it be something like LFCASM or something, i know that sounds crazy but I'm just wondering if their is a different title for them other then RSM



Actually the title is Brigade CWO and Area CWO, but the name more often used is Bde RSM and Area RSM...which makes no sense if you think about it for a second.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Run away gun said:
			
		

> 1. Chief Warrant Officer(Chief Petty Officer 1st Class), also refered to as Regimental Sargent Major.



Not always.  A CP01 is referred to as Cox'n.  A CWO who is not a RSM is not called RSM.  



> a) NCOs can get around the ceiling by commissioning from the ranks (CFR as it is commonly refered to), whereby they take a commission, and are automatically given the rank of Lieutenant or Captain and continue their progress through the officer rank structure. They do not need a degree, however CFR is usually only offered to Senior NCOs ( Sgts and above).



Sgt's are the only Senior NCOs in the CF.  Warrant Officers are Warrant Officers, not Snr NCOs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Traviss-g,

There are 3 sides of the rank structure; Non-Commissioned Members, Subordinate Officers and Commissioned Officers.  I will use the Army rank structure for ease (the Navy uses different names)

*Non-Commissioned:  All ranks from Pte to CWO*
Break Down:

Privates:  there are Pte (R) for recruits, Pte(T) for trained.  Also, 3 trades in the Combat Arms call their Privates traditional names once they are trained.  Trooper=Pte(T) in Armour, Sapper=Pte(T) in Combat Engineers, and Gunner=Pte(T) in the Artillery.  Signals also use Signalmen for Pte(T).  Also, in Airborne units, Pte(T)'s are normal called Trooper.  How do you tell an Airborne Trooper from an Armoured one?  Berets of course; Airborne wear maroon and Armour wears black.

Junior NCOs:  Cpl and MCpl

Senior NCOs:  Sgts (and only Sgts)

Warrant Officers:  WO, MWO, CWO

As you can see not all NCMs are NCOs, but all NCOs are NCMs.  There are 3 ranks that are properly refferred to as NCOs.  WOs are NOT, I repeat NOT NCOs.  They are Warrant Officers.  

  
*Subordinate Officers:*  Officer Cadet, properly referred to as a Subordinate Officer, as they do not have a Commission.

*Commissioned Officers:  2Lts to General*
Breakdown:

Junior Officers:  2Lt, Lt and Capt

Senior Officers (sometimes referred to as Field Grade):  Maj, Lt Col and Col

General Officers:  Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General and General.


In general terms, you can have authority over subordinates by rank, or by appointment.  I've been staff on courses where, say, there were 3 Sgts, and one of them was appointed the Course WO position, where the other 2 Sgts are subordinate to him by appointment.


*Mods, can you delete this post?  I missed the first or second reply with the link to everything I've just typed out.   *


----------



## traviss-g

OK i think i am understanding now. I do have another question though, how often/easy is it for NCO's to move to COs (By CO i mean comissioned officer, not sure if that is right abbreviation.) like how often do say, sgt. move up to LT. or Capt? And how easy is it for them to do such a thing? I am just wondering becuase I am joining as an NCM but I am wondering if i end up wanting to move up what my options are. I don't have a degree so I know i wont be applying as a DEO (I think that is what it is called) but i am just curious. Also in general would a CWO be more respected than a Capt? I know i keep saying it but i cant say it enough, thanks for everyone help  !


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://army.ca/forums/threads/1330.0/

http://army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html


----------



## Loachman

"CO" is Commanding Officer, and there is only one of those per unit, ie Infantry Battalion, Amoured or Artillery Regiment etcetera.

There are several threads describing Officer requirements and commissioning plans. You just need to look.


----------



## traviss-g

Alright sorry but I really did try to look, I used the search function looking for keywords such as "Difference, NCO, commisioned". I am a little niave as to using the search funtion  ??? and my first post was locked for the same reason. So I am sorry for repeat question  :-[. So what is the correct abbreviation for a comissioned officer?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Normally, we just say Officer.  As all of them have commissions.

"The WO is  in talking to the officer now".


----------



## traviss-g

Ha Ha riiight I suppose that would make alot of sense  .


----------



## Shamrock

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Normally, we just say Officer.  As all of them have commissions.



By normally, he means politely.  Normally, it's a different set of words used to describe officers


----------



## traviss-g

Something a little more imaginative i would guess


----------



## Run away gun

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Normally, we just say Officer.  As all of them have commissions.
> 
> "The WO is  in talking to the officer now".



In an army environment most young NCMs and NCOs will refer to an officer by the position they hold. For example a platoon commander (usually a Lieutenant or Captain) will usually just be referred to as the platoon commander. Likewise for the OC (officer commanding), who is usually a Major and in charge of a company or the CO, who commands the battalion/regiment. 

Of course this is when said person is not in attendance. When they are present, just a simple sir is sufficient.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Run away gun said:
			
		

> In an army environment most young NCMs and NCOs will refer to an officer by the position they hold. For example a platoon commander (usually a Lieutenant or Captain) will usually just be referred to as the platoon commander. Likewise for the OC (officer commanding), who is usually a Major and in charge of a company or the CO, who commands the battalion/regiment.
> 
> Of course this is when said person is not in attendance. When they are present, just a simple sir is sufficient.



I hope that wasn't for me (I was Combat Arms for 17 years afterall).  I didn't want to get into that stuff, and really confuse the lad with how we called the Troop Officer the troopie, the Tp WO "alpha", crew commanders by their c/s, 49C for the SSM, etc and so on.... ;D


----------



## traviss-g

Haha well Eye in the sky I appreciate the thought  . I re-read your post like three times trying to figure out what the abbreviations meant, i ended up lying on the floor with my foot behind my head and my dog licking my face  :-\.


----------



## Run away gun

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I hope that wasn't for me (I was Combat Arms for 17 years afterall).  I didn't want to get into that stuff, and really confuse the lad with how we called the Troop Officer the troopie, the Tp WO "alpha", crew commanders by their c/s, 49C for the SSM, etc and so on.... ;D



No, more of an add-on to what you said.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Haha well Eye in the sky I appreciate the thought  . I re-read your post like three times trying to figure out what the abbreviations meant, i ended up lying on the floor with my foot behind my head and my dog licking my face  :-\.



It sounds confusing but...really it isn't.  You'll catch on to the lingo/slang/jargon.  And its MOC specific some of it, the infantry types have their own, the Arty guys do too, blackhatters, Air Force, Navy, RMS Clerks.  Everyone has their own lingo.  Personally its one of the things I love about the military.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Run away gun said:
			
		

> No, more of an add-on to what you said.



Seen


----------



## traviss-g

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It sounds confusing but...really it isn't.  You'll catch on to the lingo/slang/jargon.


Yea it's just fun to read post here when you dont understand the lingo, like reading a book half in english half in latin. Thanks for all the posts, especially you Eye in the sky I appreciate all the answers you have given me not just on this one thread  .


----------



## Loachman

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Alright sorry but I really did try to look,



No problem. Unsuccessful attempts are better than no attempts, and you'll see people who won't even bother to do that fairly frequently. You'll get used to picking the right key words eventually - just keep practicing.



			
				traviss-g said:
			
		

> I used the search function looking for keywords such as "Difference, NCO, commisioned".



Computers are dumb, and cannot interpret. This is one reason why we insist upon proper spelling here, as it makes searches easier and more complete. There are two "s" in "commissioned". Leaving unnecessary suffixes off generally helps, too. "Commission" will find "commissioned", but the latter will not find the former so you'll miss a lot of  posts that way.

"Commission" does bring up quite a few posts that appear to be useful.

I also tried "Commissioning Plan" and found some potential amongst a lot of chaff.

Knowing the names of the various plans helps. Try "DEO", "CEOTP", "UTPNCM", "ROTP", and "CFR".

You'll catch on.


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> crew commanders by their c/s, 49C for the SSM, etc and so on.... ;D



We use fixed callsigns at unit level. The CO is always "9", pronounced "Niner". The Deputy Commanding Officer, or DCO, is always "9A", pronounced "Niner Alpha". The RSM would be Niner Charlie". The unit CP is  "Zero". Companies/Squadrons/Batteries (sub-units; names vary depending upon the type of unit) are "1", "2", "3" etcetera. Their OCs (Officers Commanding) would be "One Niner", "Two Niner" etcetera. Their 2ICs (Seconds in Command) would have an "Alpha" after that. The platoons and their commanders in A Company (callsign "1") would be "One One", "One Two", and "One Three". The sections would have an "Alpha", "Bravo", and "Charlie" after that. This is done so that should an enemy be listening into that unit's frequency (which will change at least daily), he will have a harder time determining which unit it is as all have the same callsign structure. It is fairly common to refer to people by their callsign.

You will also hear wives referred to as "Niner Domestic".

We'll leave Apointment Titles and Arm Indicators for a later lesson.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Traviss,

I will try to give you an overview of career progression for two hypothetical high school graduates who join the Canadian Forces.  I will make them Armoured (Crewman) since that is my background.

One of the pair decides that he has had enough school for now and wants some practical experience.  He enrolls in the Canadian Forces at 18 and goes off to the Recruit School at St-Jean Quebec.  He has the normal recruit school experience and comes out knowing how to wear his uniform, understands the rank structure, can fire the C7 reasonably well and can perform drill.  He then goes off to Gagetown New Brunswick where he does the DP 1 (Developmental Period) Armoured Recce Crewman course at the Armour School.  Here he learns the basics of his occupation and comes out knowing how to be an armoured soldier (driving, comms, field living, some more weapons, etc).  He then joins his Regiment as a badged Trooper and will be assigned to a vehicle (call-sign) in a Troop in a Squadron.  For arguments sake we will make him a driver in a Coyote.  At this point he is a fully-functioning soldier in the Canadian Force performing the task he was initially enrolled for.  As a new soldier at the Regiment he will most likely get quite a bit of supervision and direction from his immediate supervisors, and hopefully some seasoned Troopers and Corporals (a Private in the Armoured Corps is called a Trooper) will give him plenty of pointers.

He will go on exercises and will most likely deploy to Afghanistan with his Squadron.  The work-up training for Afghanistan is quite long, and by the time he deploys he will most likely be a trusted member of the Troop capable of performing his duties to a high standard with little direction or supervision.  He might have picked up some additional courses along the way.  He will come back from Afghanistan as a combat veteran.  Hopefully he will get a little down-time at this point before entering another training cycle.  Depending on the timing of his Squadron's deployment he might have served 4 years at this point and would get promoted to Corporal.  He probably received his 25mm Turret Operator Course (gunnery) and is likely employed as a gunner in a Coyote.  Depending on a bunch of things he might be in the hopper for another tour, and at some point in the near future he is selected to undergo leadership training with a view to promotion (technically appointment) to Master Corporal (MCpl).  The time to get to MCpl will depend on how he performs and how many MCpl slots are available.  I think that two years as a Cpl is the minimum but it usually takes longer.  For a while in the 90s there were almost no promotions but things have gotten much better.  Promotion to MCpl will depend on merit and is not guaranteed. For argument sake we will say that after his second tour (this time as a gunner) and some additional courses (quite challenging ones), our soldier is promoted to MCpl at year nine.  He becomes a junior crew commander and after four years with another tour he gets promoted to Sergeant (Sgt).  He is now a Patrol Commander with two vehicles under him.  He is an expert in how to fight an Armoured Fighting Vehicle.  He has been instructing soldiers on call-outs, and is now posted to the Armour School as an instructor.

His friend from high school, on the other hand, was a successful ROTP applicant.  He spent four years in university as an OCdt and attended training in the summer while his friend was serving at the Regiment and in Afghanistan.  The summer training got progressively harder, and after four years he emerges as a newly-minted Second Lieutenant (2Lt) bearing a commission.  He comes to the Regiment and is appointed as a Troop Leader.  He has a lot of responsibility, but he also has a lot of help.  Although his training will give him some credibility, he is very much an unknown quantity.  He will get quite a bit of guidance and supervision.  There will be a Warrant Officer who is the second-in-command of the Troop (called a Tp WO) who most likely has between fifteen and twenty years of service.   The WO advises, guides and (in private) corrects the young officer.  There are also two Captains (the Battle Captain and the Squadron 2IC) in the Squadron who will ride herd on the young Troop Leaders and a Major who commands the whole lot (Officer Commanding or OC).  Those Captains will have already served a three year tour at the Regiment as Troop Leaders and have then spent three years at the Armour School or some other establishment before coming back to the Regiment (ten to twelve years of service including the four at university).  The Major will be on his third hitch at the Regiment.  The Major is joined by a Master Warrant Officer (MWO) who is the Squadron Sergeant Major (SSM).  The SSM probably has between twenty and twenty-five years of service with an impressive number of operational tours.  They are the Squadron "command team" and they work together to ensure that the Squadron is operationally effective. 

Don't worry about who gets the most "respect."  Everybody has a duty to perform, and they all have to be done well for the organization to be effective (in an AFV everybody has to do their job or you are ineffective).  Both the guy who joined as an NCM and the guy who joined as an officer can have rewarding careers and raise families if they want, and both will be accorded the respect that they earn.  

Best of luck!


----------



## greenjacket

are you going reg force or reserve because the carrear progression is different


----------



## traviss-g

I'm going reg. forces. So even after the training both superiors and, in the case of the Officer, inferiors (I don't like that word but I don't know what to call those with a lower rank.) will still give advice, help out the newbies. I think I understand, so when it comes to NCM and Officers experience is not necessarily reflected by rank. I do have another question, a little (to be read ALOT) off topic but it is only becuase you said your background was in armour and that is one of the MOC I am looking at. Does it require good math skills? I have up to grade 11 university math but it has been about 3 years since i have done any math harder than simple additions and multiplications. I have been practicing my math a bit for the apptitude test but things are not going so well  :-\.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

traviss-g said:
			
		

> I'm going reg. forces. So even after the training both superiors and, in the case of the Officer, inferiors (I don't like that word but I don't know what to call those with a lower rank.) will still give advice, help out the newbies. I think I understand, so when it comes to NCM and Officers experience is not necessarily reflected by rank. I do have another question, a little (to be read ALOT) off topic but it is only becuase you said your background was in armour and that is one of the MOC I am looking at. Does it require good math skills? I have up to grade 11 university math but it has been about 3 years since i have done any math harder than simple additions and multiplications. I have been practicing my math a bit for the apptitude test but things are not going so well  :-\.



They are referred to as *subordinates * vice inferiors but that made me chuckle!   

Experience and rank are usually unofficially tied to each other, as you won't see a Warrant Officer with 3 years in, as an example.

As I am no longer in the Armour Corps, I'll leave your question on math to those that are still in the know.  I would guess that, as a Crewman (the NCM side of the Corps) math would probably come into play during your gunnery course.


----------



## North Star

Basically, here's the deal:

If you want to do a job very well, and become an subject matter expert, and ultimately be respected for that, become an NCM. While you will on occasion be employed outside your trade, you'll always go back to it and be expected to be a master of it. As you progress, you'll do leadership courses and courses that will focus you on becoming an expert in your trade (ei...as infantry you start out learning how to be a rifleman, then how to lead a section, then how to master all small arms, then how to lead a platoon/make sure your officer isn't nuts, courses on how to oversee other infantrymen, etc). By the end of your career, you'll mentor soldiers on how to excel in their trade, and advise officers on how their ideas/policies will effect the soldiers. 

If you want to enter what you can call a "managerial" class, become an officer. You won't actually become a master at your occupation: you're expected to become a generalist that can understand the many conflicting requirements of planning and executing military operations. As you go up in rank, instead of focusing on your occupation you will broaden your perspective (ei...learn how to command a platoon, then a combat team of infantry, armour, etc, then a mixed BG, then Joint or combined ops, etc). By the time you reach the end of your career, you really won't be an "expert" on your area, but you will know how everything fits together and bring that perspective into your "piece".

The other thing is leadership changes between being an NCM/NCO and officer. As a NCO, your leadership tool-box will be mainly of the inspirational kind. You'll lead by personal example most of the time, although there will be occasions when you'll employ a more consultative form of leadership. For an officer you start out with a personal kind of leadership style, but you will have to evolve it into a consultative form by the time you hit Major. It's hard to lead by personal example as you go up the chain, as your breadth of responsibilities increase. You'll still pull it out of your leadership "tool-box" from time to time, but not as much as NCOs do.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Monsoon

North Star said:
			
		

> If you want to enter what you can call a "managerial" class, become an officer. You won't actually become a master at your occupation


This will come as a surprise to air force pilots, naval MARS types and officers outside the army combat arms who have specific occupations distinct from the subordinates they direct. I see what you're getting at, but the extent to which officers are just management generalists who learn less tradecraft than their subordinates is largely limited to the combat arms. In the air force, operational officers fly planes and their subordinates maintain them - two distinct trades that both sides have mastered.


----------



## aesop081

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> In the air force, operational officers fly planes and their subordinates maintain them - two distinct trades that both sides have mastered.



Some of us subordinates fly on them too..........


----------



## Monsoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Some of us subordinates fly on them too..........



Sure, but you see what I'm getting at. Altogether different jobs.


----------



## Loachman

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> This will come as a surprise to air force pilots, naval MARS types and officers outside the army combat arms who have specific occupations distinct from the subordinates they direct. I see what you're getting at, but the extent to which officers are just management generalists who learn less tradecraft than their subordinates is largely limited to the combat arms. In the air force, operational officers fly planes and their subordinates maintain them - two distinct trades that both sides have mastered.



The "subordinates (who) maintain" are not my subordinates, directly at least - they are the subordinates of the Squadron Air Maintenance Engineering Officer. I occasionally have subordinates who fly on my helicopter, in the form of Flight Engineers who are active crewmembers and not just  there to fix/fill/clean things. In Ops, I had subordinates of various ranks and trades and my prime function was not flying. I've also spent a considerable chunk of my time in staff and liaison positions. There is a fair amount of generalism in Tac Hel at least, more to this job than simple surly bond-slipping.


----------



## North Star

To caveat my take, it's Army combat arms centric. In my new support trade, it also holds (Int Ops perform specific specialized tasks, Int Officers plug them into the Operational Planning Process/manage the expectations of commanders/link the products together).


----------



## Gagne314

So i'm presently an OCdt with the reserves, planning on transferring to the reg force. 
My dilemma is lately I've been feeling I'd rather be a non-commissioned member rather than go the officer route right away.
I'm hoping for some advice (preferably from someone who may have experienced both military life as an officer and an ncm) on how i might best go about this, and maybe a few pros and cons.


----------



## JimMorrison19

The mods will be here soon to tell you, but:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html <--- General FAQ For Recruiting

Merged your second link 
Bruce


----------



## dimsum

What trade are you switching to?


----------



## Il_Duce

Spent a couple mins with the search function but I couldn't find any specific answer to my question.

My question is rather simple. I am currently in college getting my bachelors degree, and was wondering while I am attending school can I join the reserves as an NCO, and then when I graduate with my bachelors degree, leave the reserves and join the Regular forces as an officer?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Il_Duce said:
			
		

> Spent a couple mins with the search function but I couldn't find any specific answer to my question.
> 
> My question is rather simple. I am currently in college getting my bachelors degree, and was wondering while I am attending school can I join the reserves as an NCO, and then when I graduate with my bachelors degree, leave the reserves and join the Regular forces as an officer?



1. Spend more time using the search function, and
2. Yes but be prepared to start at square one again......


----------



## Il_Duce

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> 1. Spend more time using the search function, and



Apologies, I don't spend much time on forums, but I will thoroughly search the forums over the next couple days when time permits.




			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> 2. Yes but be prepared to start at square one again......



This isn't much of a problem for me, my main concern was just having to deal with potential red tape, and it becoming some insane, drawn out affair.

From what I have read though, it may be a very long time from application to admittance to get into my local reserves.


----------



## Neill McKay

Il_Duce said:
			
		

> I am currently in college getting my bachelors degree, and was wondering while I am attending school can I join the reserves as an NCO, and then when I graduate with my bachelors degree, leave the reserves and join the Regular forces as an officer?



You may find it worth enquiring about the Reserve Entry Scheme.  I don't know if it still exists, but at one time it was possible to enrol in the reserve force as an officer if one were working towards a degree but didn't yet have it.  That might serve your aspirations better than enroling as an NCM.

Mind you, there's something to be said for having some time as an NCM before becoming an officer.


----------



## Danjanou

Aside from the search function, I can think of at least two rather senior and respected members on here that have gone this route and i'm sure one or the other will be along shortly.


----------



## bolt

I'm sure there are wise and experienced soldiers on here who will give you good advice. My perspective is that of a current DEO applicant for the reserves with 2 degrees. With the current funding issues and some reserve units being flush with officers, if I were doing it again I would go the NCM route. In the reserves you may even get up to Corporal...and then you can switch over. From my friends who are in the military my understanding is that having some NCM time in can give you a better perspective and maybe even a little more credibility when you go the officer route. And if time is on your side age wise, I would just get in either way. Nothing to lose as far as I can see. (From my perspective that is.)

Cheers.


----------



## Zoomie

There is no red tape involved - it happens quite frequently.  It involves a component transfer (CT) from the PRes to the RegF.

I did it back in 1999 and haven't had any issues - in fact, that extra time in the ranks helps maintain perspective when you eventually have to command troops of your own.


----------



## Blair981

Hello, i am currently finishing 11th grade and would like to join the military after highschool. I talked to a recruited about joining and he gave me all the information and requirements.
My plan was to go as infantry officer and hopefoully get into RMC university.

The only problem i see is that i dont know if officer IS right for me. I consider myself a leader and i am willing to work hard to become an officer, but i dont have clear if as an infantry officer i will be on the field with all the other combat arms NCOs or i will just be on an office, because i dont want a desk job. I talked to 2 NCOs i know about it, one of them said i would definitely be on the fild and combat operations while the other expressed some hate against officers even saying that they just get paid for the hard work of NCOs.

In conclussion the question is, should i try to go for officer or nco? and will i be on the field as an infantry officer?

Excuse if i have bad grammar, although i am canadian citizen i was absent from canada until some months ago.


----------



## Navalsnpr

You could always join the ranks and apply for UPTNCM after you have some experience under your belt.


----------



## armyvern

Blair981 said:
			
		

> Hello, i am currently finishing 11th grade and would like to join the military after highschool. I talked to a recruited about joining and he gave me all the information and requirements.
> My plan was to go as infantry officer and hopefoully get into RMC university.
> 
> The only problem i see is that i dont know if officer IS right for me. I consider myself a leader and i am willing to work hard to become an officer, but i dont have clear if as an infantry officer i will be on the field with all the other combat arms NCOs or i will just be on an office, because i dont want a desk job. I talked to 2 NCOs i know about it, one of them said i would definitely be on the fild and combat operations while the other expressed some hate against officers even saying that they just get paid for the hard work of NCOs.
> 
> In conclussion the question is, should i try to go for officer or nco? and will i be on the field as an infantry officer?
> 
> Excuse if i have bad grammar, although i am canadian citizen i was absent from canada until some months ago.



I'm sure that some Inf Officers & Infanteers will be able to provide you more input as to what their days more fully entail; we have many of them on this site. In the end though, only you will truly know which fit is the best for yourself.

By the way, your spelling and grammar isn't that bad --- it's much better than some English first language posters on this site. Good luck to you your decision making process.


----------



## Occam

Blair981 said:
			
		

> In conclussion the question is, should i try to go for officer or nco?



Just a minor correction:  The question should have been properly worded "Officer or NC*M*?".  One is either an Officer or a NCM (Non-Commissioned Member).  NCO is Non-Commissioned Officer, and means something completely different - and you'll find the explanation elsewhere here on the site, I don't want to completely derail your thread.


----------



## Blair981

oh ok thank you, but just to clarify NCO would be from master corporal to chief warrant officer?


----------



## armyvern

Privates to Chief Warrant Officers are all NCMs (non-commissioned members)

Corporals to Sargeants are NCOs (non-commissioned officers).

Ptes are Ptes;
Cpls & MCpls are Junior NCOs;
Sgts are Senior NCOs; and
WOs, MWOs and CWOs are "Warrant Officers".

Ergo why our Mess is not called the "Senior NCO Mess", but rather the "WO's & Sgt's" Mess.


----------



## vonGarvin

Blair981 said:
			
		

> oh ok thank you, but just to clarify NCO would be from master corporal to chief warrant officer?


No.  NCOs are Corporals and Sergeants.  (MCpl is an appointment, not a rank). Cpls are Junior NCOs, and Sgts are Senior NCOs


Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer and Chief Warrant Officer are Warrant Officers.

Collectively, from Pte to CWO they are Non Commissioned Members


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Blair981 said:
			
		

> Hello, i am currently finishing 11th grade and would like to join the military after highschool. I talked to a recruited about joining and he gave me all the information and requirements.
> My plan was to go as infantry officer and hopefoully get into RMC university.
> 
> The only problem i see is that i dont know if officer IS right for me. I consider myself a leader and i am willing to work hard to become an officer, but i dont have clear if as an infantry officer i will be on the field with all the other combat arms NCOs or i will just be on an office, because i dont want a desk job. I talked to 2 NCOs i know about it, one of them said i would definitely be on the fild and combat operations while the other expressed some hate against officers even saying that they just get paid for the hard work of NCOs.
> 
> In conclussion the question is, should i try to go for officer or nco? and will i be on the field as an infantry officer?
> 
> Excuse if i have bad grammar, although i am canadian citizen i was absent from canada until some months ago.



If you want to go to RMC and become and infantry officer then go for it. Follow your gut. 

Infantry officers go to the field when their troops go to the field. They also do administration, but everybody has some aspect of administration to complete. Trust me, you will work.

Best of luck!


----------



## mike_a

I originally applied to Canadian Forces about 18 months ago, for the MARS Officer trade within the Navy.
Unfortunately going through the application process delayed my process and the trade closed.
I was told to wait for April and hopefully the trade will open up again. 
Now I'm being told that MARS Officer may not be on demand for another year and with my current university degree, MARS and Logistics officer are the only options that I have. However if I decide to enter as a NCM I would have much more options.

My question for you guys, is waiting for an officer trade to open up worth it? Beside pay scales, is there a huge difference between an Officer and NCM?
(Forgive me if my question might sound a bit less than intelligent, but I don’t know anyone in the Navy)
Thanks


----------



## Hal Jordan

My response is that it depends on what you're looking for in a career? A friend of mine has a university degree from a prestigious school, and he choose to be a NCM. He says it's a pretty rewarding experience, and wouldn't trade it for anything else. But that will differ from person to person. As for your pay scale question, it doesn't seem to be a big difference judging from the information in the CF website. 

Some of the advice on this site that I got is that you shouldn't apply for a trade that you don't want, and then later switch into a more desirable trade. According to some people on this site, it's best to just go for the more desirable trade and wait. I think the advice is sound, but that's ultimately up to you. 

cheers. 

Hal


----------



## jeffb

Hal Jordan said:
			
		

> As for your pay scale question, it doesn't seem to be a big difference judging from the information in the CF website.



You may want to re-read the CBI table as this statement is simply not correct.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

mike_a said:
			
		

> Beside pay scales, is there a huge difference between an Officer and NCM?



Yes there is a big difference.  You walk into a management level position as opposed to spending years working your way there.  You also get to drink beer with the admirals and a lot of interesting people.


----------



## srhodes

From viewing the NCM trades on the CF website, are there any that catch your eye or appeal to you?  I think every applicant to the CF (whether they are going Officer route or NCM route) have maybe one or two trades in the other stream that catch their eye.  

I would agree that it makes good sense to go for one that really interests you, but then again it is kind of disappointing to apply for a NCM trade that you could have perhaps gotten fresh out of high-school as a 19 year-old.  Post secondary isn’t cheap, and neither was the time (years)  you spent on getting the degree.  To have that count for nothing  is a tough pill to swallow.

Ps. 18 months?  Geez, that’a long time.  Was the delay because of something you did or the CF did?

Pss. To Hal.  What NCM trade did your friend from the prestigious school get that you were mentioning?  Curious!


----------



## airdelta2

I'd personally wait it out if nothing interests you now. As an officer (I mean you have the qualifications for training...assuming you passed any officer testing after you apply with your degree) you are going to be leading many of those who are in the NCM positions. It would be hard to take an NCM job (especially if you wanted this job full time) and know "I could have been that officer in command of my team".

Plus as that other poster said: You're essentially spending years as an NCM to work up to a management/NCM officer position....when you have the degree already. But you said your degree only gives you two options, that can't be. MAYBE only those two are currently open...but there's people with all sorts of degree(s) in pilot, acso, aec, armour, infantry, military police, mars, intel...they just 'prefer' a trade specific degree...however if you have any social science/arts degree then you qualify for most officer trades. 

I am applying next year for DEO to a few different officer positions with a social science BA...RC told me that 'almost any degree will do for these officer positions' and there were at least 6-7 options.


----------



## mike_a

Originally I walked into my recruitment centre to apply for the Imagery Technician position, shortly after I found out that, Image Tech openings are extremly rare and they mostly go to people that are already in the CF. 
My recruiter mentioned to me maybe I should apply for the DEO, having seen my degree, which by the way is Bachelor of Design. 
At the time I was applying, MARS officer was on demand, so I put my name down for that. It toke CF around 18 months to process my file, it toke them only 12 months to submit my security clearance. 
Right now there are openings for Naval Electronics Technician in Communications and Sonar, which sounds amazing to me, because I always loved electronics, but on the other hand, being an Officer on a ship doesn't sound bad either from all the recruitment videos on the CF's website.
Has anyone had to make the same decision? Am I stressing too much about this?


----------



## taerakwon

You got to find a trade that you believe it can be your life time career.  I am only listed for AEC, though I first applied to AEC and LOG.  My degree is HBsc (Biochemistry & Neuroscience), and with my degree, I believe that I was able to apply to all following trades: 1. Aerospace Control Officer, 2. Air Combat systems Officer , 3. Armour Officer, 4. Artillery Officer, 5. Bioscience Officer, 6. Infantry Officer, 7. Logistics Officer, 8. Maritime Surface and Sub-surface Officer, and 9. Signals Officer.  I decided to stick only to AEC, although my recruiter told me that AEC is a very competitive to enter, because I am just so passionate, maybe having some sort of affections, with AEC position.  I just wish to become an AEC officer, then have it as my life lasting career.  For me, waiting is not a big deal because it is the only trade that I really want to pursue.  Do not try to change your trade after going through all training, etc, because if you become an officer, you are working as a leader whom is responsible for leading your own platoon; therefore, you got to build up your reliability and trust.  I believe, if you do not find anything interesting with CF, and if your intention to join is just for the taste of money, then I strongly suggest you to find a civilian occupation.  FIND A TRADE THAT SERIOUSLY INTERESTS YOU AND WAIT FOR IT.


----------



## George Wallace

srhodes said:
			
		

> I would agree that it makes good sense to go for one that really interests you, but then again it is kind of disappointing to apply for a NCM trade that you could have perhaps gotten fresh out of high-school as a 19 year-old.  Post secondary isn’t cheap, and neither was the time (years)  you spent on getting the degree.  To have that count for nothing  is a tough pill to swallow.



An education is never a waste of time.  It is recognized at all levels in the CF.  

Remember: a Degree does not make you a Leader.  As a non-ROTP Entry Plan, which DEO is, one will be/can be Released from the CF if they fail their initial Leadership training.  The CF has nothing invested in keeping you.  

As an NCM, your education is still of value.  You have more maturity than kids out of High School, a higher education, and may show the potential to advance at a much quicker pace through your choosen Trade and the ranks.  

We have other threads where people have asked these very same questions.  In the end, it is you who make your career choices and hopefully it will be choices that you truly desire and will be happy doing for a long period of time.


----------



## mike_a

Just a follow up.

Last week I got a phone call to book my interview, the recruiter told me that makes much more sense to go for MARS Officer and leave the Naval Electronics Technician as a second option. He proceeded to saying that there are few spots available for MARS and he wants to push my application through for MARS. 
On the interview day, the first thing that I was told by the career consultant was that “she has punched in few numbers in a program and that had concluded that I’m not a good fit for MARS Officer.” After that, she said that if I want we could continue the interview for the Naval Electronics Technician. I accepted that and now I’m waiting for my medical. 
But I have to ask you guys something, is there really such a program? Was she testing me to see how bad I want to get into MARS, since that is competitive occupation?


----------



## PuckChaser

The recruiter wouldn't lie to you like that. Based on their experience, and seeing your info/scores, she concluded you would be a better fit for NET. You could have still said you wanted to carry on with MARS, but you took her advice. After all, it wasn't like they told you that none of your trade choices looked good, you very well may get your second choice, which happens to a lot of people.


----------



## Sigil

Sounds like a much different experience than the one I had. I was informed that you couldn't apply for both officer and NCM at the same time. You would have to submit a completely different application rather than mix and match on your trades choices.

I was also not told of any special program that rated your suitability for MARS (other than the CFAT and meriting process). I think they get more into that sort of thing at the NOAB.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Hal Jordan said:
			
		

> As for your pay scale question, it doesn't seem to be a big difference judging from the information in the CF website.


I can see why you would think this - an OCdt and Pte are paid almost exactly the same.  However the OP would be entering as a DEO A/SLt (aka 2Lt) and thus make nearly $1000/month more than a Pte.

Private Standard $2663 
OCdt OCTP $2687 
2Lt DEO $3644


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> You also get to drink beer with the admirals and a lot of interesting people.


   I wouldn't count on this part!


----------



## mike_a

Thanks for the clarification Lex.

On CF's website, assuming the Naval Electronics Technician would be considered a Corporal Specialist 1, it says that at the basic level, the monthly rate would come down to $5012. That's more than what 2Lt DEO makes. 
Am I reading this correct?


----------



## agc

First you would have to earn the rank and become fully qualified in the occupation.  You still start out at the basic Pte rate of pay.


----------



## nickanick

agc said:
			
		

> First you would have to earn the rank and become fully qualified in the occupation.  You still start out at the basic Pte rate of pay.



It indicates that Pte pay scale only have 3 incline rates. I know if you don't get promote you will still stay at the same level.
However, 3 years is more than enough for completion of all education and training, is that right?


----------



## chevalnoir

> However, 3 years is more than enough for completion of all education and training, is that right?



You'd think so.

In some trades you would be wrong.


----------



## mike_a

For Naval Electronics Technician after BMQ, there’s a 18 months apprentice training, and then 12 months of journeyman training, so yes roughly 2.5 to 3 years of training.
Can someone be promoted during those 3 years, or will you pretty much be a Private through out.


----------



## jeffb

And only a few trades get spec pay. For combat arms trades for example the only people that get promoted with 3 years are those who get advance promoted to Cpl and that can only happen at the 3 year mark. 

The bottom line though is that you should pick a trade and make the decision to become and officer vs going NCM by figuring out what you want to do. Once you work in the pension and other benefits you will be living comfortably no matter what path you choose. The important thing is that you enjoy your trade and are happy.


----------



## agc

Points for this:



			
				jeffb said:
			
		

> The bottom line though is that you should pick a trade and make the decision to become and officer vs going NCM by figuring out what you want to do. Once you work in the pension and other benefits you will be living comfortably no matter what path you choose. The important thing is that you enjoy your trade and are happy.



As for:



			
				mike_a said:
			
		

> For Naval Electronics Technician after BMQ, there’s a 18 months apprentice training, and then 12 months of journeyman training, so yes roughly 2.5 to 3 years of training.
> Can someone be promoted during those 3 years, or will you pretty much be a Private through out.



It could take longer than 4 years to get promoted to Leading Seaman (Corporal's pay) in this occupation (now W Eng Tech), and then you have to complete all of your QL5  (Journeyman's) training before you will become entitled to Specialist pay.


----------



## nickanick

So does it means some spec NCM have the same/higher pay as Officer? (As if from the beginning of the service)


----------



## jeffb

nickanick said:
			
		

> So does it means some spec NCM have the same/higher pay as Officer? (As if from the beginning of the service)



Maybe. There is so much that goes into what your pay is beyond your rank level. If we look at an officer who is DEO after 3 years you'll find that he is probably a Captain (or Lt if Navy). Captain starts at 5887 depending on the trade. (Pilots and medical officers make more for example). If you are really interested, you can check out the CBI at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/doc/204-02.pdf

I'll say it once again though, don't get wrapped around the axle when it comes to pay for choosing your career.


----------



## GreenIsGood

A recruiter in the Montreal CFRC boiled the DOE-vs-NCM issue down to one question: "Do you want to do hands-on work ?" 

His point is that NCM is hand-on work whereas officer work is generally hands-off managerial work.

Hope that helps.


----------



## jemcgrg

airdelta2 said:
			
		

> I'd personally wait it out if nothing interests you now. As an officer (I mean you have the qualifications for training...assuming you passed any officer testing after you apply with your degree) you are going to be leading many of those who are in the NCM positions. It would be hard to take an NCM job (especially if you wanted this job full time) and know "I could have been that officer in command of my team".



This is exactly why I didn't change to AC OP when AEC closed this year.


----------



## gunzgirl85

Hello everyone,

I'll give you a little background first...I'm in my mid 20's, and I was a CIC officer until last year (I finished as a Slt). I have a B.Sc. and an M.Sc in Chemistry, and I've worked for government research since finishing school (1.5 years). The thing with a degree in science is I am a do-er, not a "sit at a desk and do paperwork-er". I liked being a CIC officer, but I hated the admin part (ironically I was the admin officer).

Now that my carrier has derailed a little (not much funding in sciences because of budget cuts, working at stats can instead) I would like to do something more exciting! I always wanted to do a job where I could travel and experience new adventures..Sounds sappy right? CIC didn't really fulfill my craving for a sense of purpose or adventure...

Anyway, I have a masters degree, and about 26000$ in student loans. My last job payed around 50k.

I went to the recruitment office today to see about becoming a Biosciences Officer, but I don't have the exact educational requirements (chemistry instead of biology...). I'm not really interested in many of the officer trades... Also, many of the trades I can apply for require a general bachelor degree, which I would argue is a little of a let down in applied knowledge.

However, a lot of the NCM trades look interesting (namely the radio medical imaging, sonar and radar techs). I really like imaging, and I have a lot of knowledge on imaging techniques..the bulk of my master's thesis was on cellular imaging for cancer detection. Some of my problems with joining as an NCM are:
-Almost all of my friends are officers, as well as my boyfriend. This difference in level might be difficult to deal with..
-The beginning pay scale as a private is not sufficient to cover my costs (on unemployment insurance I make almost the same and its hard to make ends meet..and I don't have a vehicle, children, or pets, just me!) I think I'm worth more than what they are offering for privates.. I would be 30 and not making what I made 3 months ago!
-The promotion rate as an NCM is very slow, whereas as an Officer I can make 2Lt or ASlt after BOTC (I still hold a commission)
-I'm only a little older than the 2lts getting out of university, but I would be much older than my NCM peers out of high school

Do the pros outweigh the cons for NCM enrollment? Or should I keep trying to find a good fit for an officer trade (hopefully one that is hiring soon..) ?

Thanks for all your help and I look forward to your advise


----------



## Zoomie

Stick with the Officer route - find a career that interests you and will continue to do so in the future.


----------



## MedCorps

Agreed.  Find an Officer job that interests you and go that route. 

MC


----------



## RCDtpr

Would you rather be an officer or an NCM?  Me asking you seems redundant based on your post but that's really all there is to it.

If you feel you are too good to be a private then don't be an NCM.  That said...be prepared as an officer cadet, 2lt and LT to not make much money.  Obviously I'm not speaking from experience but every troop leader I've had has said the same thing....you don't make a good salary until Captain.  You will be promoted to Captain in roughly the same amount of time it would take you to become a corporal.

As a captain you are far from guaranteed to ever becoming a major....so your argument that promotion is slower as an NCM is simply incorrect.

Again, this is a decision you need to make based on what you would rather do with your life.


----------



## aesop081

gunzgirl85 said:
			
		

> I think I'm worth more than what they are offering for privates..



Unfortunately, they are not going to change the pay for Privates for you. Only you can decide if it's worth the "hit" based o your job selection.



> -The promotion rate as an NCM is very slow,



Promotions are merit-based so it can be very slow or very fast depending on the individual. I'm a good example of the fast side of things : Cpl to (shortly) WO in less that 7 years.


----------



## helpup

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> As a captain you are far from guaranteed to ever becoming a major .


A capt will have allot more pay incentives though and in the end make more then what a MWO will.  (one of the few reasons my wife CFRed)

There are also other threads about this topic that will give more information.  Even with your debt load you should be able to make ends meet if you go NCM.  There are those with family and kids and debt who join in their late 20's-30's.  Depending on how you budget it is being done.  There are also depending on trade spec pay and other allowances that can help mitigate things.  

As for knowing allot of friends who are officers.  I am not trying to be presumptuous here but there are many married couples of Officer/NCM level and or even just friends.  There is still a line in uniform that is not crossed but we are more liberal in that attitude then say 15 + years ago.


----------



## gunzgirl85

Thanks everyone,
I talked to my officer friends and I think they've convinced me to go the officer route. I already have a commission and may be eligible for IPC level bonus since I was a "reserve" officer for 5 years. And then eventually I eventually can be in charge of the sonar and radar techs lol
I'm not much for driving a ship, but it does lead to other interesting jobs. However, if my dream job in the civilian world comes through then I'll be satisfied.

"That said...be prepared as an officer cadet, 2lt and LT to not make much money.  Obviously I'm not speaking from experience but every troop leader I've had has said the same thing....you don't make a good salary until Captain.  You will be promoted to Captain in roughly the same amount of time it would take you to become a corporal."

The pay rates for 2lt, and Lt are a lot better than the private rate. As well, Lt make about what I made in my last job. In my line of work it would take at least 10-15 years to make what a Capt makes (if ever), so I'm not that worried for waiting. Currently I'm making 38K in a clerk jobs for stats can; nothing at all like my last job as a researcher.


----------



## Chang

Get that CT application in early too... 2 of my friends who are CT/OT MARS (one from CIC, one from army reserves) have been waiting for over a year and a half for the NOAB call.


----------



## Trick

Hi Gunz,

Liked reading your post as I'm in a slightly similar position. I'm finishing a MSc right now though in bio. As a sidenote- I'm a cancer researcher, I work with lots of chems/physicists in imaging! It seems you've made your decision, but I'd also recommend you use that education and join up as an officer. I don't want to come off as a snob/elitist, but the kind of education you have is worth much more than the technical skills you've acquired and is something few are lucky enough to have. As you already have your MSc you're in the highest group for education (same as PhD), and with a decent application outside of it, it will certainly help you get up to a level 4 or even 5 priority pretty easily I think.

Personally, I have about a year left in my MSc, but finally submitted everything today (Infantry Officer) and am writing my CFAT soon. I really have in mind to apply next year as if I actually get in any time soon it'll mean leaving my degree unfinished which I'd rather not do (but would be willing to do if given a spot). Personally I think I'll be too late for this year as I have to go through the lengthy loyalty check for time spent studying in Germany, but no harm in seeing how it goes. Ha, I understand your motivations for wanting to join up. Unless you have an NCM trade you're dead-set on though, my own 2 cents would be to do the officer thing. Many other people on hear that know more than me though- I'm only at the start of the process.

Best of luck,


----------



## cnobbs84

Hey,

I just made that decision myself... With the economy sill stagnate more and more university grads are looking to join the forces. And becoming an officer is getting harder and harder. I have chosen to 
with drawl from the DEO route and go NCM for the time being. I have selected a trade that works with my degree so after a few years in the forces i can than play the degree trump card. it was a hard decision 
to make but in the long run it ill pay off.


----------



## Trick

I suppose it would depend on the trade, but from what I've seen there's even more competition in the NCM trades, especially those without many academic requirements.


----------



## Silverfire

At this point, getting into the CF in general is tough.  They're really only taking the best at this point.  Having a degree isn't something only officers have.  I've seen numerous NCM's with bachelors and masters.  If one hasn't graduated high school as a bare minimum, they're going to struggle getting in nowadays.


----------



## jwtg

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> i can than play the degree trump card.



Your degree is hardly a trump card, and does not guarantee that you will ever become an officer. Yes, there are methods of going from NCM to Officer but I believe if you speak to the people who are in the process, or who have tried or completed the process, you will find that it is far from automatic.

Many will enter, few will win!


----------



## cnobbs84

what i mean was, i have a better chance than other who try to work their way up thru the ranks. I understand that i would not become an officer overnight and that it does take time, however i may get in the trade which i know ill enjoy and make up my mind i may never want to be an officer, but i always have my degree to fall back on.  but either way i want to serve in the forces either as an officer or as ncm so either way is a win win for myself


----------



## aesop081

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> i have a better chance than other who try to work their way up thru the ranks.



You will have the same chance as everyone else. While you already have a degree, your performance as an NCM and your leadership potential will play a much larger part in deciding if you make it into an in-service commissioning program. Having a degree does not mean you excel at these two things.


----------



## George Wallace

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> what i mean was, i have a better chance than other who try to work their way up thru the ranks. I understand that i would not become an officer overnight and that it does take time, however i may get in the trade which i know ill enjoy and make up my mind i may never want to be an officer, but i always have my degree to fall back on.  but either way i want to serve in the forces either as an officer or as ncm so either way is a win win for myself



As two others have posted, your degree guarantees nothing.  As a person who aspires to join the CF, either as a NCM or an officer, you will have to learn how to communicate clearly and concisely.  Right now I understand that you want to get into a Trade that you will enjoy when you are ill.  Your run-on sentence, lack of capitals and proper punctuation, spelling and grammar could make my understanding of what you are trying to say incorrect.  NCMs and officers in the CF must know how to communicate clearly in both the written and oral form as people's lives depend on clearly understood messages being passed.

Right now you are communicating like a High School dropout, and that will not do you any good in advancing your career in the CF, even as an NCM.


----------



## Journeyman

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> what i mean was, i have a better chance than other who try to work their way up thru the ranks. I understand that i would not become an officer overnight and that it does take time, however i may get in the trade which i know ill enjoy and make up my mind i may never want to be an officer, but i always have my degree to fall back on.  but either way i want to serve in the forces either as an officer or as ncm so either way is a win win for myself


I wish to offer my heart-felt condolences regarding your imagined military career.

You see, I cannot imagine _any_ CF trade whose standards are such that they would recruit someone who finds a keyboard's <shift key> so completely incomprehensible.



Edit: If I spent more time in the Recruiting threads, George Wallace wouldn't have beat me...
...but I'd likely be a babbling idiot from reading some of the posts


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I wish to offer my heart-felt condolences regarding your imagined military career.
> 
> You see, I cannot imagine _any_ CF trade whose standards are such that they would recruit someone who finds a keyboard's <shift key> so completely incomprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: If I spent more time in the Recruiting threads, George Wallace wouldn't have beat me...
> ...but I'd likely be a babbling idiot from reading some of the posts



As I passed on to you on another means, reading this type of "product" from someone having/claiming a higher education has a tendency to turn one's brain into mush, trying to figure out what they're saying.  This is enough to drive the person marking/assessing their work to drink.  

Next Thursday?


----------



## Journeyman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Next Thursday?


Response PM'd


----------



## cnobbs84

Last time I checked the Canadian Forces' standards do not include proper grammar on an internet forum. This is a place where people of a younger generation come and ask questions to those who are normally twice our age. I will admit that the older generation does pay a lot more attention to grammar because you did not learn to text before you learned to type. But before you decide to put anyone down on this site you may wish to think about where these people come from and their backgrounds. Granted GW you have been in the forces for a good many years and no doubt have tons of useful knowledge to pass on to those wishing to join the forces... but I do believe you underestimate the people who are writing these posts. I for one have graduated with honors from University and will be the first to admit that I get lazy when it comes to typing on the internet posts. So my suggestion to all senior members of this site is to do what you came here to do and advise the younger generation and get off your high horse when it comes to small things like grammar. If that seems too difficult to handle may I suggest that you leave this site to those are will answer questions with out huge amounts of sarcastic remarks.


Thank you


----------



## George Wallace

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> Last time I checked the Canadian Forces' standards do not include proper grammar on an internet forum. This is a place where people of a younger generation come and ask questions to those who are normally twice our age. I will admit that the older generation does pay a lot more attention to grammar because you did not learn to text before you learned to type. But before you decide to put anyone down on this site you may wish to think about where these people come from and their backgrounds. Granted GW you have been in the forces for a good many years and no doubt have tons of useful knowledge to pass on to those wishing to join the forces... but I do believe you underestimate the people who are writing these posts. I for one have graduated with honors from University and will be the first to admit that I get lazy when it comes to typing on the internet posts. So my suggestion to all senior members of this site is to do what you came here to do and advise the younger generation and get off your high horse when it comes to small things like grammar. If that seems too difficult to handle may I suggest that you leave this site to those are will answer questions with out huge amounts of sarcastic remarks.
> 
> 
> Thank you



Thank you very much for your opinionated retort.  

I have just spent three days marking written reports for five officers.  It took me less than one day to mark four of their papers, and over two days to mark the fifth.  My mind was turning to mush with trying to read through all the red ink I used on the grammatical, spelling and other errors in his writing that I had to seek other people's opinions on my marking.  All have agreed that his work is a dismal failure.  I get to brief him on it Monday morning.  He will have to rewrite the whole thing and hand it back into me by Thursday.

So, you think we are being "Dickheads" by demanding that people on this site do their best to maintain army.ca as a "professional" forum and improve their skills before they reach the stage where I may be assessing them for real and marking their work as a FAILURE?

By the way, all these officers have Degrees, as do I, and there should be no reason in the world that they can not write in a clear, concise, logical manner.

Just proof again that a Degree is a piece of paper more suited to be hung on a wall at home, not at work, and admired by family only.  It sometimes is not worth the paper it is printed on.  You may take that under advisement, as the Internet, is not anonymous.  Someone, somewhere, may research your past and find you here.  But, what the hey!  You know it all.  Thanks for coming out.

Oh!   

 /rant.


----------



## dangerboy

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> Last time I checked the Canadian Forces' standards do not include proper grammar on an internet forum.



This is an unofficial web site not a CF website and the standard of the site is dictated by it's owner.  His standard is outlined in the Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html and includes guidelines such as:



> You will not use excessive webspeak, or other shorthand styles of typing. Please use English or French to the best of your ability; this makes it easier for those who are not posting in their native language.


----------



## George Wallace

Oh!  Yes.  On going back to reflect on your comments above, I stand by this post, but am encouraged that you did put the extra effort into your most recent reply/retort.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As two others have posted, your degree guarantees nothing.  As a person who aspires to join the CF, either as a NCM or an officer, you will have to learn how to communicate clearly and concisely.  Right now I understand that you want to get into a Trade that you will enjoy when you are ill.  Your run-on sentence, lack of capitals and proper punctuation, spelling and grammar could make my understanding of what you are trying to say incorrect.  NCMs and officers in the CF must know how to communicate clearly in both the written and oral form as people's lives depend on clearly understood messages being passed.
> 
> Right now you are communicating like a High School dropout, and that will not do you any good in advancing your career in the CF, even as an NCM.



Again, thank you for putting that little extra effort into replying and displaying a much better form of writing.  I have already commented on the content and will leave it at that.


----------



## Pusser

cnobbs84 said:
			
		

> Last time I checked the Canadian Forces' standards do not include proper grammar on an internet forum. This is a place where people of a younger generation come and ask questions to those who are normally twice our age. I will admit that the older generation does pay a lot more attention to grammar because you did not learn to text before you learned to type. But before you decide to put anyone down on this site you may wish to think about where these people come from and their backgrounds. Granted GW you have been in the forces for a good many years and no doubt have tons of useful knowledge to pass on to those wishing to join the forces... but I do believe you underestimate the people who are writing these posts. I for one have graduated with honors from University and will be the first to admit that I get lazy when it comes to typing on the internet posts. So my suggestion to all senior members of this site is to do what you came here to do and advise the younger generation and get off your high horse when it comes to small things like grammar. If that seems too difficult to handle may I suggest that you leave this site to those are will answer questions with out huge amounts of sarcastic remarks.
> 
> 
> Thank you



I think the forum rules are pretty clear on this subject, but this is a pet peeve of mine, so I'm going to elaborate.

You'd better hope you never work for me, because I would crucify any of my subordinates for this attitude.  Grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax are not "small" things.  They are the essential building blocks of communication.  I cannot emphasize enough that communication is an essential building block of operational success.  Literally thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen have died and battles have been lost because of poor communication.  I'm not talking about faulty equipment.  I'm talking about messages being misinterpreted because the originator didn't communicate effectively.

All members of the CF are under constant scrutiny.  Be it a letter, an email, a formal report or a casual conversation with your supervisor, your communication skills will be assessed at every turn.  In fact, it's so important that it gets mentioned in two sections of you annual Performance Evaluation Report (PER) - an essential building block of the promotion system.  Anything worth doing is worth doing well and admitting that you are too lazy to do that is not gong to win you any points anywhere, but especially not here.


----------



## Ayrsayle

"So my suggestion to all senior members of this site is to do what you came here to do and advise the younger generation and get off your high horse when it comes to small things like grammar. If that seems too difficult to handle may I suggest that you leave this site to those are will answer questions with out huge amounts of sarcastic remarks."



Wow. I won't even touch on the grammar (it has been addressed) but what makes you think the senior members of this board have nothing else to do besides answer your (or others) questions? I'm fairly sure they have other motivations besides being slapped for their opinions (which, surprisingly, they manage to express with more civility then they are addressed with.)

Think of these boards as someone's house - would you walk into someone's home, spit on their floor and demand to be fed whatever and whenever simply because they went to the effort of cooking dinner? If they had the gall to ask you wash your hands and eat with a knife and fork when sitting at their table - that is completely outrageous! If the members of this board offend you by insisting you follow the rules of the house (so to speak), you should seek advice elsewhere. Calling these forums yours does not make it so. There is a very large distinction between something you are welcome to access, and something you deserve.

While it is not only you, these kinds of statements cast a poor light on our generation in general.


----------



## vhaust

The ones with good grammar skills will notice grammar mistakes.
Someone writing a lengthy text with a laid back attitude is 
bound to make typos and write run-on sentences, etc.
When I log onto the internet, if I can understand what I wrote, and the person on the receiving end understands the main points, 
I think it would be a good idea to focus on the issues rather than grammar if the mistakes are not critical. Modern education emphasize more on concepts than grammar. 
This is from my personal experience. 
Some will disagree, perhaps grammar 1st, then concept.
But to some extent, grammar is crucial because I remember
doing a physics lab where the lab manual is hard to comprehend due
to poor grammar, rendering the concepts even harder to understand.
Now, this is not acceptable imo.


----------



## vhaust

After going back to the main menu, I realized that we're a bit off-topic.


----------



## Journeyman

vhaust said:
			
		

> Modern education emphasize more places more emphasis on concepts than grammar.


Perhaps that is because the education system is predicated on the painfully mistaken view that grammar and logical sentence structure would have been taught in grade school and reinforced in highschool.


----------



## jwtg

vhaust said:
			
		

> The ones with good grammar skills will notice grammar mistakes.
> Someone writing a lengthy text with a laid back attitude is
> bound to make typos and write run-on sentences, etc.


I'm sure that lengthy texts can be produced free of error.  Go to a library and you'll find many examples.  A 'laid back attitude' might not be the best way for someone to communicate that they would like to be taken seriously.



> When I log onto the internet, if I can understand what I wrote, and the person on the receiving end understands the main points,
> I think it would be a good idea to focus on the issues rather than grammar if the mistakes are not critical.


This is not consistent with the forum guidelines.  All are expected to make an effort to communicate effectively and using proper grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.  A typo is not the same as disregard for the proper use of the English language.  Also spellcheck is quick and easy.



> Modern education emphasize more on concepts than grammar.
> This is from my personal experience.
> Some will disagree, perhaps grammar 1st, then concept.
> But to some extent, grammar is crucial because I remember
> doing a physics lab where the lab manual is hard to comprehend due
> to poor grammar, rendering the concepts even harder to understand.
> Now, this is not acceptable imo.



I'm pretty sure that when I pursue 'modern education' I still get docked marks for poor writing.


----------



## Pusser

vhaust said:
			
		

> The ones with good grammar skills will notice grammar mistakes.
> Someone writing a lengthy text with a laid back attitude is
> bound to make typos and write run-on sentences, etc.
> When I log onto the internet, if I can understand what I wrote, and the person on the receiving end understands the main points,
> I think it would be a good idea to focus on the issues rather than grammar if the mistakes are not critical. Modern education emphasize more on concepts than grammar.
> This is from my personal experience.
> Some will disagree, perhaps grammar 1st, then concept.
> But to some extent, grammar is crucial because I remember
> doing a physics lab where the lab manual is hard to comprehend due
> to poor grammar, rendering the concepts even harder to understand.
> Now, this is not acceptable imo.



What gives you the idea that there is a choice between grammar and concept?  Not everything in life involves choices.  This is one of those cases where you have to do both!  Understanding a concept or formulating an idea is simply not enough.  You also have to be able to communicate that idea properly in order to be effective.

I boggles my mind that there is an element present which seems to feel that the combined advice of many of us with many years of experience is off base.  Someday, when you are the CDS, perhaps you can change the way we do things, but in the meantime, I suggest you take heed of the warnings of your elders and learn from them.  You might also keep in mind that in order to one day become CDS, first you must get past us!


----------



## vhaust

Reading from the replies, I think I have made myself unclear due to poor grammar.
What I am trying to say is some guys posting on this forum are youngsters,
or guys with a relatively small background in education under the English system,
and I believe that a certain degree of tolerance for grammatical mistakes should be endowed.
On the other hand, a lab manual or textbook with sentences that are hard to comprehend should
receive a smaller portion of tolerance because they are expected to be professionals,
especially if the author of the manual has a Ph.D in front of his name.
Also, these manuals are most likely reviewed by publishers and that should add
an extra filter to miscommunications. 
Moreover, a good portion of the people from Quebec are educated under the French system, and if they come to this forum to ask a question, 
assuming that they are not too familiar with the English language, they may be intimidated. The same goes for native English speakers in a French speaking forum/region. 
A certain degree of tolerance should be assumed so they can remain in harmony.


----------



## jwtg

vhaust said:
			
		

> Reading from the replies, I think *I have made myself unclear due to poor grammar.*



An interesting thing to admit, given your position on the matter.


----------



## aesop081

vhaust said:
			
		

> Reading from the replies, I think I have made myself unclear due to poor grammar.



 :rofl:


----------



## mariomike

vhaust said:
			
		

> Reading from the replies, I think I have made myself unclear due to poor grammar.
> What I am trying to say is some guys posting on this forum are youngsters,
> or guys with a relatively small background in education under the English system,
> and I believe that a certain degree of tolerance for grammatical mistakes should be endowed.



From another topic: "As a Military related site, we try to encourage "professionalism" and good writing skills.  Admittedly some on this site don't have the education, or perhaps their English skills being a second or third language, and we try to accommodate them; but when someone comes on claiming to be 'educated' we do expect more from them.":
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/87494/post-853986.html#msg853986


----------



## Journeyman

vhaust said:
			
		

> .....some guys posting on this forum are youngsters, or guys with a relatively small background in education under the English system,
> and I believe that a certain degree of tolerance for grammatical mistakes should be endowed.


Notwithstanding I believe you mean "entertained" rather than "endowed," you honestly believe that the best course of action is to dumb down the responses rather than push for more effort from the questioners? [Please consider this to be a rhetorical question; I have no desire to be pen-pals] Society will be _much_ further ahead that way.    :facepalm:



> ...especially if the author of the manual has a Ph.D in front of his name.


Degrees and honourifics held follow the name; that's why they're called postnominals.



> A certain degree of tolerance should be assumed so they can remain in harmony.


You haven't the vaguest idea of how much tolerance is _already_ displayed by the senior membership here -- some by merely avoiding the Recruiting threads, which I will do again momentarily. 

But heaven forbid some 18-year old's ability to self-actualize, or his zen placement within the cosmos, is diminished by something read within an online forum.   :


----------



## vhaust

Thanks guys for the replies.


----------



## Ayrsayle

As a note regarding being educated in French and posting in an English area of the forums - I have yet to see an individual get dressed down for poor grammar when they have identified themselves as being native French speakers. Quite the opposite!

Not saying it has not happened, just that I have yet to see it. I like to think most members can see the difference between sloppy grammar and a struggle to use it effectively. Defending a right to sloppy grammar however would fall under the former.

My opinion, of course.


----------



## Pusser

Ayrsayle said:
			
		

> As a note regarding being educated in French and posting in an English area of the forums - I have yet to see an individual get dressed down for poor grammar when they have identified themselves as being native French speakers. Quite the opposite!
> 
> Not saying it has not happened, just that I have yet to see it. I like to think most members can see the difference between sloppy grammar and a struggle to use it effectively. Defending a right to sloppy grammar however would fall under the former.
> 
> My opinion, of course.



I think you've hit the nail on the head.  The difference between a lazy approach to writing and writing in your second language is usually quite obvious.


----------



## George Wallace

vhaust said:
			
		

> What I am trying to say is some guys posting on this forum are youngsters,
> or guys with a relatively small background in education under the English system,
> and I believe that a certain degree of tolerance for grammatical mistakes should be endowed.
> 
> On the other hand, a lab manual or textbook with sentences that are hard to comprehend should
> receive a smaller portion of tolerance because they are expected to be professionals,
> especially if the author of the manual has a Ph.D in front of his name.
> 
> Also, these manuals are most likely reviewed by publishers and that should add
> an extra filter to miscommunications.



Huh?  

I have no idea of what you are trying to say.

If someone comes onto this site and claims to be a holder of a university Degree and communicates like a High School dropout, then they will be targeted for this type treatment and ostracized for their lack of writing skills.


----------



## M2

I've read this thread and aside from grammar, of which I am ever mindful, I have a question pertinent to this topic.

Having previously served both in the ResF and RegF, I returned to the ResF to complete my MA in political science following an Honours BA in business and political science. I have completed six years of reserve service with a year spent with the RegF on deployment in TFA 3-06 and two years in the RegF with deployment on TFA 3-08. Still happily a Corporal, I'm looking to return to the service with a masters degree and am seeking your advice on a potential commission. Prior to leaving the RegF, I was ranked favourably to attend PLQ though not having completed my BA at the time, I felt compelled to return to my alma mater as a reservist. Checking with the officer in charge of career's in L-101 (Pet), she instructed me that a UTP-NCM would only be possible pending board selection the following March 2010 (my contract was up Sept 2009 in time for fall term at university) so naturally faced with the known and unknown, I chose the known route and decided to pay my own way through the rest of my degree.

So school's done, the economy nears another (deeper?) recession and while I have a passion for political science, the degree is primarily only useful as a signal to potential service-sector employers. While I could enter this workforce, I don't want to spend the rest of my life revising insurance policy, executing deliverables to VP's or taking part in "casual Friday's" knowing that out there, in the field, be it on exercise or for real, my good friends I made in the Army are doing what I really enjoyed. I prefer to return to my Army family and be as useful as possible to the service.

Would you gentlemen (and of course ladies) be kind enough to give direction or comments as to commissioning? While I was a combat engineer as an NCM, I don't believe I can enter this MOC as an officer in absence of a B.Eng. The alternative I am looking at is to join the infantry as I would prefer not to join other (potentially more appropriate?) MOC's such as public affairs as I prefer fieldwork now in my youth. 

Looking for your guidance friends.

-Matt


----------



## dangles

M2 said:
			
		

> Looking for your guidance friends.
> -Matt



Although I have no previous experience, I can offer you some small guidance. It seems you want to use your masters degree to become an Officer and get the most of your money...which is completely understandable.

However, it also seems you want to do the work of a NCM based on your strong desire to do field work. Unfortunately, just looking at some of the information from the www.forces.ca website, even the Officers in the Combat Arms have to do a lot of administrative work, or work akin to "revising policies, executing deliverables." This administrative work only increases if you are going to make a career out of being an Officer in the CF.

 Regardless, you should realize that you don't need to be on the pointy end of the stick to make a difference in the Canadian Forces. The CF is a conglomerate of trades that are equally important in order for the CF to function smoothly. Although as an Officer you may not be out in the field every day, you are still an invaluable member of an organization dedicated to making a difference. So my advice would be to keep in mind the inherent differences between an Officer and a NCM, and join a trade you would want to make a career out of, regardless of the pay scale.


----------



## Franko

dangles said:
			
		

> Although I have no previous experience, I can offer you some small guidance. It seems you want to use your masters degree to become an officer and get the most of your money...which is completely understandable.
> 
> However, it also seems you want to do the work of a NCM based on your strong desire to do field work. Unfortunately, just looking at some of the information from the www.forces.ca website, even the officers in the Combat Arms have to do a lot of administrative work, or work akin to "revising policies, executing deliverables." This administrative work only increases if you are going to make a career out of being an Officer in the army.
> 
> Regardless, you should realize that you don't need to be on the pointy end of the stick to make a difference in the Canadian Forces. The CF is a conglomerate of trades that are equally important in order for the CF to function smoothly. Although as an Officer you may not be out in the field every day, you are still an invaluable member of an organization dedicated to making a difference. So my advice would be to keep in mind the inherent differences between an Officer and a NCM, and join a trade you would want to make a career out of, regardless of the pay scale.



Officer

Just an observation.

Regards


----------



## Pusser

M2 said:
			
		

> I've read this thread and aside from grammar, of which I am ever mindful, I have a question pertinent to this topic.
> 
> Having previously served both in the ResF and RegF, I returned to the ResF to complete my MA in political science following an Honours BA in business and political science. I have completed six years of reserve service with a year spent with the RegF on deployment in TFA 3-06 and two years in the RegF with deployment on TFA 3-08. Still happily a Corporal, I'm looking to return to the service with a masters degree and am seeking your advice on a potential commission. Prior to leaving the RegF, I was ranked favourably to attend PLQ though not having completed my BA at the time, I felt compelled to return to my alma mater as a reservist. Checking with the officer in charge of career's in L-101 (Pet), she instructed me that a UTP-NCM would only be possible pending board selection the following March 2010 (my contract was up Sept 2009 in time for fall term at university) so naturally faced with the known and unknown, I chose the known route and decided to pay my own way through the rest of my degree.
> 
> So school's done, the economy nears another (deeper?) recession and while I have a passion for political science, the degree is primarily only useful as a signal to potential service-sector employers. While I could enter this workforce, I don't want to spend the rest of my life revising insurance policy, executing deliverables to VP's or taking part in "casual Friday's" knowing that out there, in the field, be it on exercise or for real, my good friends I made in the Army are doing what I really enjoyed. I prefer to return to my Army family and be as useful as possible to the service.
> 
> Would you gentlemen (and of course ladies) be kind enough to give direction or comments as to commissioning? While I was a combat engineer as an NCM, I don't believe I can enter this MOC as an officer in absence of a B.Eng. The alternative I am looking at is to join the infantry as I would prefer not to join other (potentially more appropriate?) MOC's such as public affairs as I prefer fieldwork now in my youth.
> 
> Looking for your guidance friends.
> 
> -Matt



I understand what you are getting at.  Yes, there are a multitude of officer occupations (e.g. infantry, armour, artillery, MARS, Pilot, Air Nav, etc) for which your academic background is suitable and in which you will have plenty of opportunity for "fieldwork."  Altough Political Science is not a "preferred" degree for Logistics, it is an "acceptable" degree.  If you really liked blowing stuff up with the Engineers, LogOs (specifically Ammunition Technical Officers - ATOs) get to dabble in that.  Just keep in mind that as an officer, there will be plenty of administration (i.e. "paperwork") to do in addition to  (i.e. not instead of) the fieldwork.


----------



## Windsorite

I applied DEO to MARS back in May 2010, I have been delayed in getting merit listed due to long form security check for my time completing my Master's degree in Australia. I have just been informed today that I am ineligible for MARS because I do not hold a Canadian University degree (BA from Ohio and MA from Australia). There was no justification as to why this is.

It was very upsetting news as this was something I was very passionate about pursuing.

So if anyone is interested in holding out on a MARS position make sure you have a degree from a Canadian University - just something to think about.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Windsorite said:
			
		

> . . . . . I have just been informed today that *I am ineligible for MARS because I do not hold a Canadian University degree* (BA from Ohio and MA from Australia). There was no justification as to why this is.
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> So if anyone is interested in holding out on a MARS position make sure you have a degree from a Canadian University - just something to think about.



That seems odd, as the DAOD on the DEO Plan states:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5002-2-eng.asp


> educational requirements
> 
> a degree in a suitable discipline from a Canadian university, *or an equivalent recognized degree from a foreign university* or education institution; and
> 
> other additional qualifications in accordance with the occupational specifications set out in A-PD-055-002/PP-001, Canadian Forces Manual of Military Occupational Structure - Occupational Specification



Having known and served with several (maybe dozens of) officers who received their university education outside Canada, my only conclusion is that there is more to the story.


----------



## Allgunzblazing

MARS is also one of my occupation choices. I am a new Canadian and all my education was done abroad. However, none of the recruiting staff have told me that I was not eligible for MARS. When I had first gone to the CFRC, the recruiter asked if I had got my degrees evaluated for Canadian equivalency. I told him that I had done that already, after which he took copies of the degrees, transcripts and the credential evaluation report given to me by the International Credential Evaluation Service. That was it, simple and straight.


----------



## Windsorite

Allgunzblazing said:
			
		

> MARS is also one of my occupation choices. I am a new Canadian and all my education was done abroad. However, none of the recruiting staff have told me that I was not eligible for MARS. When I had first gone to the CFRC, the recruiter asked if I had got my degrees evaluated for Canadian equivalency. I told him that I had done that already, after which he took copies of the degrees, transcripts and the credential evaluation report given to me by the International Credential Evaluation Service. That was it, simple and straight.



Allgunblazing, 

I too had my degrees evaluated for Canadian equivalency, and it too was simple and straight. 

Recently, my application was transferred to another office that now handles regular force applications in the region. Literally today, I received a call from my new contact at the recruitment office, he wanted to update me on current situations because he didn't know what my original recruiter has/has not informed me of. He told me that there was an announcement in May 2011 informing recruiters to stop processing any applicants with degrees outside of Canada for MARS positions. He said he had the sheet right in front of him and he wanted to let me know as I will have to change occupations. I asked him if there was any reason for this and he said none was given with the announcement.

If you have been given other information please let me know because I still don't understand the rationale for this.


----------



## Allgunzblazing

This is really strange... If more than one recruiting staff have told you that degree awarded from foreign universities are not accepted for MARS, then there must surely be some new directive. Maybe the recruiting folks did not mention it to me because right now this trade is closed.


----------



## gatz

I've been "in the system" for a while now, and I have completed my CFAT as well as the airnav test. Unfortunately some of my medical paperwork got tied up and as a result I missed the board date for RMC (I was applying for ACSO). As I will have completed over two years of university come next board date I will be disqualified for ROTP, and thus my only other option is to join a reserve unit while completing my degree in a civilian university.

I have decided on joining an infantry reserve unit, but I'm not sure whether to enter as an officer cadet or as an NCM. Does anybody have any insight to offer on the duties and expectations of these career paths while in the reserves? I tried to search this forum but I couldn't seem to find any relevant posts.

Thank you


----------



## Trick

Just to clarify- you intend on going into the reg force after you graduate with your undergrad? Also, are you sure you're not longer eligible for ROTP? I was under the impression that so long as you're working towards your degree, you are eligible.

The only personal input I have is that a friend of mine, a grad student (so not undergrad) was an officer in the reserves and said it wasn't a good choice- it's very hard to balance the demands. But we're in the medical sciences, where grad school is basically just a poorly paying job rather than "school" so that may not apply to you really.

I think it would be a good idea to go down to your local reserve unit and just talk to people around there. I'm sure they'll give you good advice based on your own situation.


----------



## CountDC

Trick is right - your future plans in regards to regular force is a factor.  I would imagine if planning to join there as an officer then it would be better to join the reserves as an officer vice ncm.

In the old days when I was reserve working at LFAAHQ the view point was that it was better to join the reserves as an NCM and the Regular as an Officer.  The  reasoning was that there were more jobs for NCMs than Officers which was important considering most were students.  The reason for Regular force officer was based purely on the pension aspect - most will reach the rank of Capt and receive a higher pension than most do as NCM's.


----------



## jwtg

gatz said:
			
		

> I have decided on joining an infantry reserve unit, but I'm not sure whether to enter as an officer cadet or as an NCM.


I wasn't aware that you could even enter the reserves as an OCdt except via RETP, which is similar to the ROTP or if you already had a degree and could be commissioned upon completing BMOQ. 
I'm curious, if you want to enter the reserves as an officer, do you need to have a degree already?


----------



## gatz

Yes, if all goes well I hope to enter the ASCO program through DEO. I'm 99% sure I'm no longer eligible, and if I was I have to admit my application is not as competitive as I'd like it to be so I think that all things considered reserves is the best choice for me at the moment.

I'm pursuing an undergrad in physics, I wonder if that will make my workload unmanageable? Is there anybody out there that has worked on a B.Sc while in the reserves as an officer cadet?

I've spoken with a Chief Warrant Officer in charge of reserve recruiting, and he would like me to decide on officer or NCM before he sets up an appointment with the commanding officer of the infantry regiment in question (which he will only have to do if I decide on officer anyway). 

If there are any reserve members posting that could try to illustrate some differences between an officer cadet and a NCM I would be extremely grateful. Mainly I'm wondering which route would be most beneficial to my career in the future. Perhaps it would be ideal to serve as an NCM to "learn to ropes", or maybe it would help to be immediately immersed in the responsibility of being an officer. Is there even much of an different between an officer cadet and private when it comes to the reserve force?


----------



## gatz

jwtg said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that you could even enter the reserves as an OCdt except via RETP, which is similar to the ROTP or if you already had a degree and could be commissioned upon completing BMOQ.
> I'm curious, if you want to enter the reserves as an officer, do you need to have a degree already?



The impression I got today from the recruiting center was that if you are currently enrolled in university perusing a relevant degree, you may enter the reserves as on officer cadet. In order to be commissioned to 2Lt you must graduate, although once that happens I plan on entering the regular forces.


Edit: I just realized that should I enter as an officer cadet I will be stuck at that pay grade until I graduate, at which point I will no longer be in the reserve force. What is the average career progression of a reserve NCM over the course of ~2 1/2 to 3 years?

Thank you


----------



## Brasidas

gatz said:
			
		

> The impression I got today from the recruiting center was that if you are currently enrolled in university perusing a relevant degree, you may enter the reserves as on officer cadet. In order to be commissioned to 2Lt you must graduate, although once that happens I plan on entering the regular forces.
> 
> 
> Edit: I just realized that should I enter as an officer cadet I will be stuck at that pay grade until I graduate, at which point I will no longer be in the reserve force. What is the average career progression of a reserve NCM over the course of ~2 1/2 to 3 years?
> 
> Thank you



I've known several university students who have received a commission while completing their studies. They received their commission after Common Army Phase training (CAP) and before their occupational training.


----------



## gatz

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I've known several university students who have received a commission while completing their studies. They received their commission after Common Army Phase training (CAP) and before their occupational training.



Hmm, that's very interesting, but it seems very unorthodox compared to what I've been told my several people. I wonder if there is anyone who can verify this? Needless to say it would make a very large impact on my decision


----------



## xFusilier

Firstly a disclaimer here - I'm not a G1 guy, but I am involved in the individual training system and have been in the Reserve Army for the past 20 years

Reserve Army Officers that enroll with a university degree are enrolled at 2Lt.

Those that do not have a degree but are enrolled in a post secondary program of study are enrolled as OCdt's.  They are promoted 2Lt upon completion of Basic Military Officer Qualification (Land), which was previously known as Common Army Phase.  Once these ladies and gentlemen have completed their classification training  (as per the Res Career profile for their classification) they are promotable to Lt.  For example for Reserve Army Infantry Officers, eligibility for promotion to 2Lt comes upon completion of BMOQ(L) and eligibility for promotion to Lt comes upon completion of DP1 Infantry Dismounted Platoon Commander.


----------



## MMSS

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Firstly a disclaimer here - I'm not a G1 guy, but I am involved in the individual training system and have been in the Reserve Army for the past 20 years
> 
> Reserve Army Officers that enroll with a university degree are enrolled at 2Lt.
> 
> Those that do not have a degree but are enrolled in a post secondary program of study are enrolled as OCdt's.  They are promoted 2Lt upon completion of Basic Military Officer Qualification (Land), which was previously known as Common Army Phase.  Once these ladies and gentlemen have completed their classification training  (as per the Res Career profile for their classification) they are promotable to Lt.  For example for Reserve Army Infantry Officers, eligibility for promotion to 2Lt comes upon completion of BMOQ(L) and eligibility for promotion to Lt comes upon completion of DP1 Infantry Dismounted Platoon Commander.



I'm curious (purely academic, since I both have a degree and am applying to the Reg force). What happens if a member enrolls during their program as a OCdt but does not graduate? Are they penalized in any way? I suppose I am wondering if a loophole exists where someone could enroll as a student in order to join as an OCdt and then drop out.


----------



## xFusilier

Under the Reserve Entry Scheme Officer - you are not eligible to enlist unless you are in the first year of a degree granting program and they must maintain their enrollment until they have completed their classification training.  This will take at least until their second year of training.  I would advise you against perceiving this entry plan as a loophole to a commission.  I have mentored a number of these young gentlemen as a Platoon Second in Command and the challenges of School, Physical and Mental Preparation for Phase Trg,  maintaining Academic standing at university and undertaking Regimental Duties means that you will find yourself quite busy.


----------



## MMSS

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Under the Reserve Entry Scheme Officer - you are not eligible to enlist unless you are in the first year of a degree granting program and they must maintain their enrollment until they have completed their classification training.  This will take at least until their second year of training.  I would advise you against perceiving this entry plan as a loophole to a commission.  I have mentored a number of these young gentlemen as a Platoon Second in Command and the challenges of School, Physical and Mental Preparation for Phase Trg,  maintaining Academic standing at university and undertaking Regimental Duties means that you will find yourself quite busy.



I never said that the applicants in this plan are exploiting it; nor am I (as stated, I already have a degree.) I was just curious as I am sure that I am not the only who has seen that and expect that there must be a provision somewhere that deals with the hypothetical case.


----------



## brihard

Gatz-

I'm a reserve infantry NCM, and I've got enough time in tha tI feel comfortable fielding this.

I gather that you are coming on close to the end of your first or second year of school. What has not yet been addressed is the training necessary to become functional in your trade/classification.

Reserve infantry NCMs require three months of training to be usable in trade- Basic Military Qualification, which is often done part time on weekends over about every second weekend for five months or so. Then there's two months of usually full time training- currently BMQ-LAnd, and DP1 Infantry, thoguh both are soon to be merged in our trade into one two month course. Anyway, end state, you get in, you can be qualfied in trade by the end of the next summer.

The path for officers is longer. Quite a lot longer. Your odds of being trained up to the level in your classification where you could be put in command of soldiers before you graduate is slim- and you said you then intend to go DEO. 

As for the university workload- in my unit university students are the norm rather than the exception. In my section I've got everything from criminology students to a first year aerospace engineer. My first two years commanding a section I was a full time student. I've known guys doing most kinds of engineering and the hard sciences. The workload can suck, but it's doable depending on your motivation. It should not vary substantially between NCM versus officer. I cannot speak to the demographic breakdown where you are and whether being a university student in the ranks would be unusual- but I'd be surprised if it were, even if my regiment is pretty far over on the education bell curve.

In sum- as an NCM you've a much better chance of getting a 'usable' year out of the reserves where you go out and train in trade. And an appreciation of life in the junior ranks will never hurt anyone in terms of depth of perspective. Plus it's fun, and you'll certainly inure yourself to physical hardship.

As an officer, you may be able to get trained as an officer by the time you graduate- but then you hope to immediately DEO. The benefit is you have at least a portion of officer training already done, but balance that against a lot of time as an officer cadet who will not command troops.

Your call- and I have an inherent bias in this based on where I come from, but I've tried to present the info honestly. For what it's worth if you were just starting school I'd have probably recommended you go officer as you're already certain that that is your desired end state. The real clincher for me on this is the remaining summers you have to train.


----------



## gatz

It seems to me that the ideal path would be NCM, as I will get a more "full" military experience for the 2 or so years I am in reserves. You mention you were a full time student when commanding a platoon, yet you are an NCM. You were promoted while still in school? I think the max I can reach is corporal given the time frame (not that advancement though the ranks is really a priority at all). My main concern is I have something to take away from the experience that will be beneficial towards my career, and if I'm not going to truly be an officer until I graduate (and leave reserves), then I should do the NCM thing to get my feet wet. Does this sound reasonable to you? I don't mind if you're biased, it's ok to try and sell me on it  . Thank you for the helpful reply!


----------



## PJGary

gatz said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the ideal path would be NCM, as I will get a more "full" military experience for the 2 or so years I am in reserves. You mention you were a full time student when commanding a platoon, yet you are an NCM. You were promoted while still in school? I think the max I can reach is corporal given the time frame (not that advancement though the ranks is really a priority at all). My main concern is I have something to take away from the experience that will be beneficial towards my career, and if I'm not going to truly be an officer until I graduate (and leave reserves), then I should do the NCM thing to get my feet wet. Does this sound reasonable to you? I don't mind if you're biased, it's ok to try and see me on it  . Thank you for the helpful reply!



He said commanding a section;

Fireteam = (usually) 2x soldier

Section = 4x Fireteam (Comd. is (usually) a Sgt.)

Platoon = 3x Section + Platoon HQ (Comd., 2 I/C, Signaller, Heavy weapons det.) Comd. is usually a 2lt. up to a Capt. 

I would like to echo that there are a TON of NCMs in the reserves (and the reg force) who have or are completing degrees. And sometimes not just Bachelor's degrees either. 

In my humble opinion, I think you should join as an NCM, not only for the reasons stated but also because (as outined above) there are a lot of positions in an infantry platoon with very different jobs, there is ONE officer. Going in as an NCM gives you the opportunity to perfect or at least get some experience in the section level skills and tasks and will only help you if you decide to become an officer later. Also, there are lots of low level leadership positions in a platoon that are NCM run, so you may get leadership experience out of it as well.

Hope this helps


----------



## gatz

Thank you for all the fantastic replies. I spoke with my recruiting officer earlier today and have entered as an infantry NCM. I am very excited to get started, and I hope this thread can help out others in a similar situation in the future


----------



## Pte. Jay

I've been reading around this forum, and I've been reading some things about directly becoming an NCO rather than being commissioned (for officer candidates). I have a few questions about this:

1) Is this even true?

*If it is:*

2) What are the pros and cons of becoming an NCO instead of an officer?

3) Do you have the chance to be commissioned from the ranks later on in your career?

4) What rank do you start off at?


----------



## MikeL

You can join as a NCM / Private(Recruit),  you don't join as a NCO.  Or as a Officer Cadet if you join as a Officer.


Search;  these questions have been asked/answered before.


----------



## the 48th regulator

No, JaYB


You have not searched, not one iota, of our threads, to find your answer!!!  You are not truthful, in fact, full of shyte.

I catch you making more useless, Bandwith wasting posts, I will personally whack yer ass, like a Walking Dead, from the show that will start in 5 minutes.



			
				JayB said:
			
		

> I would like to apologize for the ignorance I have been displaying for these past few days. My name has changed, and so has my behavior. Believe me when I tell you, it was not on purpose. I promise you that from this point on, I'll talk only about topics I have a thorough knowledge of and I will not state facts about things without first being sure of said facts. I really hope that you guys can forgive me for this, and we can move past this, as this forum is a small community and I would like to have the respect of each and every one of you.
> 
> Regards,
> Jay B.



Stick your apology, and my personal favourite video!!

Dude, if you can piss off the Jolly Moderator, imagine what your posts do to the others, Seriously!!

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## brihard

JayB said:
			
		

> I've been reading around this forum, and I've been reading some things about directly becoming an NCO rather than being commissioned (for officer candidates). I have a few questions about this:



Very unlikely. Had you read anything anywhere about directly becoming an NCO, guaranteed there would have been a dozen posters calling that individual out quite quickly.

There is no easy in. You either start at the bottom as a recruit in the officer path (OCdt or 2Lt), or you start at the bottom as a private recruit. You sure as hell do not get to immediately jump to the earned NCO ranks. Even where you may enter as a corporal once fully trained (e.g., MP) are not a matter of 'directly' becoming anything. It all remains earned.

Your bigest concern will be simply getting in, and then being the very best soldier you can and then hoping you are deemed fit for advancement into positions of responsibility above and beyond your own individual duties. That will be a very long way off.


----------



## WhySoSerious

Just a few questions.

- The RMC site says that "The mission of the Royal Military College Saint-Jean is to integrate, educate and develop its officer cadets by means of its academic, leadership sports and bilingualism programmes. So they can be successful as commissioned officers in the Canadian Armed Forces."
Well, what if you wanted to go to RMC but you're taking a job as an NCM, not an Officer. Is it only for Officers? Or are NCM allowed in as well?

- Would we be allowed to have our belongings over (Laptop, phone) on campus? Would I have time to get them shipped? Or would I have to do it earlier, like after AIT?

- Is this like any normal University? Would we have free time to just chill out? Or would it be class, drills, training, sleep? For example: Would there be people playing PS3 or whatever during their own time? (Not planning on it.. Just an example)

- The transition from After AIT to after RMC... What would happen? How long will it to be to go from AIT to RMC? And where would people stay? The barracks? Or will housing be available to them during this time?

- Btw, if anyone knows.. When exactly is the time to live in a CFB house? Exactly after RMC?

Thank you.

I know it's a lot of questions. But, I'm currently not in Canada, and Google isn't being very helpful with these specific questions. I've also emailed some recruitment offices, but they never reply back..


----------



## Kat Stevens

RMC is an officer hatchery.


----------



## WhySoSerious

So NCM's do not get a paid education?


----------



## MikeL

FYI "Non-commissioners" is a term you made up, it is not term that is in use with the CAF.



			
				WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> Just a few questions.
> 
> - The RMC site says that "The mission of the Royal Military College Saint-Jean is to integrate, educate and develop its officer cadets by means of its academic, leadership sports and bilingualism programmes. So they can be successful as commissioned officers in the Canadian Armed Forces."
> Well, what if you wanted to go to RMC but you're taking a job as an NCM, not an Officer. Is it only for Officers? Or are NCM allowed in as well?



Attending RMC for university on enrollment into the Canadian Forces is for Officers, not NCMs.



			
				WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> - Would we be allowed to have our belongings over (Laptop, phone) on campus? Would I have time to get them shipped? Or would I have to do it earlier, like after AIT?



AIT is US Army, the Canadian equiv is DP1/QL3.  As for the RMC policy about computers, phones, etc I'm not sure of the rules, but I've seen it mentioned before in RMC thread.  As for electronics during DP1/QL3 training, the is dependent on the school's policy, it may be locked up during the week, or you might be able to have it all week. Also, don't expect to be able to carry a cell phone on you during the working day on course.  



			
				WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> - Is this like any normal University? Would we have free time to just chill out? Or would it be class, drills, training, sleep? For example: Would there be people playing PS3 or whatever during their own time? (Not planning on it.. Just an example)


There is more to RMC then just your classes. Have a read through the RMC threads, all of the answers for your questions are there.



			
				WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> - The transition from After AIT to after RMC... What would happen? How long will it to be to go from AIT to RMC? And where would people stay? The barracks? Or will housing be available to them during this time?



The whole going from RMC to DP1(what you call AIT) is moot, as NCMs wouldn't go to RMC as part of their initial training. As for accomendations for RMC students, AFAIK they all live in a dorm style barracks - the RMC threads can shed more light on this.



			
				WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> - Btw, if anyone knows.. When exactly is the time to live in a CFB house? Exactly after RMC?



CFB house? Like the houses families can live in on a base? Those are called PMQs and depending on your trade training/school policy, single/married, and what is available you may be able to live at a PMQ while attending DP1, but for most members they live in barracks during their time in the training system.

Once you get out of the training system and posted, you will be able to apply for a PMQ.


----------



## MikeL

WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> So NCM's do not get a paid education?




Look into NCM-SEP; it is available for some trades.

There are other options available to NCMs as well, but NCM-SEP is the only program available as a entry method AFAIK.


----------



## WhySoSerious

When would I ask and tell my recruiters about applying for NCM-SEP?


----------



## MikeL

WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> When would I ask and tell my recruiters about applying for NCM-SEP?



Do you think it would be best to ask about NCM-SEP at the start of the recruiting process, or near the end?  Ask about it when you have your first contact with the CFRC; I'm not sure if there is any mention or not of NCM-SEP on the application?

http://www.forces.ca/en/page/paideducation-96#college-2


----------



## Michael OLeary

Tell them you are interested in SEP as soon as you talk to them

http://www.forces.ca/en/page/paideducation-96#college-2



> The application deadline for the Non-Commissioned Member Subsidized Education Plan is in January for the fall college session.





> Talk to a recruiter. They will 1) help you choose the best paid education plan for your specific career path, and 2) will tell you which college programs are currently supported by the Canadian Armed Forces.


----------



## WhySoSerious

Since I'm currently not in Canada and cannot call up a recruitment center, would anyone know if a Combat Engineer would qualify for SEP?
If not, is there any other way to get a paid education?


----------



## MikeL

WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> Since I'm currently not in Canada and cannot call up a recruitment center, would anyone know if a Combat Engineer would qualify for SEP?
> If not, is there any other way to get a paid education?



AFAIK, NCM-SEP is for trades that have some civilian equivalency such as Cook, Communications, etc. 

There are other ways to get a education in the CF, but they wouldn't be an option for you until later on your in your career.  At the start of your career, it is either ROTP/MOTP/DOTP/CEOTP-Pilot/SEELM for Officer and NCM-SEP for NCM.

At this point in time, IMO you are better off searching the forums and reading up on the CF Recruiting website.  I believe there may be a email contact for recruiting, plus you can also get a calling card and call them(or wait till you get back to Canada).


----------



## WhySoSerious

Later on? That's alright, I guess. Anything in particular?


----------



## MikeL

WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> Later on? That's alright, I guess. Anything in particular?



I can't think of the programs off the top of my head; if you get in and complete your training you'll have to speak with a PSO to go over your options.

You can also look into schools that offer distance learning, etc and do courses on your off time(and your money).


----------



## WhySoSerious

Oh. Thanks everyone. If anyone can think of any, I'd like to know about it so I can read more about it. Thanks.


----------



## Lumber

WhySoSerious said:
			
		

> - Would we be allowed to have our belongings over (Laptop, phone) on campus? Would I have time to get them shipped? Or would I have to do it earlier, like after AIT?
> 
> - Is this like any normal University? Would we have free time to just chill out? Or would it be class, drills, training, sleep? For example: Would there be people playing PS3 or whatever during their own time? (Not planning on it.. Just an example)



Yes, bring a laptop, desktop, cell phone tv, coffee maker, xbox, whatever. First year's are a little more restricted on what they are allowed to have in their rooms, but after 1st year it's pretty much anything goes as long as your room is kept tidy.

It's not a normail university. You will have mandatory sports and early morning activities. That being said, you will have a ton of free time. There is a campus pub, and Kingston just a 15 walk away, 4th year psych students have like, 9 hours of class a week, and they spend the rest of their time during the day napping, working out or playing videogames. Video games are very popular there, as is drinking and exercising, go figure.


----------



## peltch34

Hey,

I am just wondering how common it is for a university educated NCM to commission after serving for a particular period of time. Also, I have read that it is a fairly difficult process to commission as an NCM, is this true? Although I am not currently a member of the CF, I ask these questions because I am currently in the application process. I have applied for the Infantry Officer position, but am considering switching it to the NCM position despite the fact that I will soon have completed my degree. I have absolutely no doubt that I want to be an officer and a leader in the CF, but at the same time part of me feels that learning to follow before learning to lead could help me become a better officer. Also, after looking at the list of training courses offered to the Infantry, I noticed some cool courses that were available to NCMs but not officers. Maybe I am overthinking this, it wouldn't surprise me because I am ridiculously psyched for this, but I just wanna know the thoughts of experienced members.

Thanks,

Jay,


----------



## The_Falcon

peltch34 said:
			
		

> Hey,
> 
> I am just wondering how common it is for a university educated NCM to commission after serving for a particular period of time. Also, I have read that it is a fairly difficult process to commission as an NCM, is this true? Although I am not currently a member of the CF, I ask these questions because I am currently in the application process. I have applied for the Infantry Officer position, but am considering switching it to the NCM position despite the fact that I will soon have completed my degree. I have absolutely no doubt that I want to be an officer and a leader in the CF, but at the same time part of me feels that learning to follow before learning to lead could help me become a better officer. Also, after looking at the list of training courses offered to the Infantry, I noticed some cool courses that were available to NCMs but not officers. Maybe I am overthinking this, it wouldn't surprise me because I am ridiculously psyched for this, but I just wanna know the thoughts of experienced members.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jay,



Merged several on topic threads (that took maybe 15 seconds to find with google, and the terms NCM to Officer).  And since there is now 18 pages of discussiona and back and forth about how one goes from one side to the other, and the merits of either stream, I am fairly confident all points have been covered.  It would take a person maybe an hour to read from begining to end.   So on that note, this will be locked and stickied.  If you or anyone else feels they have something PERTINENT and NEW to add to the discussion PM a staff member to discuss the merits of your case for inclusion. 

Hatchet Man


----------



## mm3212

I have been checking through the forums for information on this topic, and while there is a decent amount, a lot is quite old so I was looking for new thoughts and or information.  My dilemma is that I am not sure if I want to begin my military career as an NCM infantry and work three years, or whatever the length of time it may be and then possibly move into an officer position, or use my post secondary degree and go through the DEO route.  My recruiter asked me why I would not go the DEO route and honestly for me I wanted to enter via NCM purely because before being an officer I wanted to do some time and get a feel for what it was like being in the military rather than dropping right into a leadership position following training.  Now I know from some of my friends in the military that DEO officers are treated at a little differently just due to the fact that they have not served and are using their degree to get a higher rank etc etc.

Now, I have not started my application just due to the fact that I am still debating both options.  So I was just looking to hear from anyone who is in a similar circumstance debating the very same thing, or possibly individuals who made the decision to go one way or the other and why they did.  

All input is greatly appreciated.


----------



## H11F

It's all about how young you are as an Officer.  That is to say, "Oh look at Maj X, so young.  Going places." or "Oh, you're 33 and a Captain? Yeah... you'll make Major and that's about it." I am not an NCM, so I cannot speak to that side of the house, but I suspect there is some of the same.

Now that is obviously a bit exaggerated, but there is truth in it.

If you want to be an officer then go that route.  You want to be enlisted, then go that route.  Don't go into one with plans to go to the other, I would say that is a waste of your time and energy.  Not to mention, once you're in, you're in.  That is to say, you're now filling a spot and doing a job that you've been trained to do, so I wouldn't expect the process of commissioning to be quick.  It can quickly be delayed for simple reasons.

Pick one route, then go it.

H11F.


----------



## jemcgrg

I joined as an NCM with the intention of going Officer and got my commission this summer (less than two years after joining). That being said I was incredibly lucky to have been selected so quickly. I know of other people that waited 7 years to be accepted for commission. This timing depends on the route you are taking to commission as well as how competitive your profile is and the time frame is different for everyone. It would be very difficult for anyone, regardless of experience, to tell you how long it would take you specifically to commission through the ranks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> I joined as an NCM with the intention of going Officer and got my commission this summer (less than two years after joining). That being said I was incredibly lucky to have been selected so quickly. I know of other people that waited 7 years to be accepted for commissionselected for officer training thru one of the various programs. This timing depends on the route program you are taking to commission  applying to as well as how competitive your profile is and the time frame is different for everyone. It would be very difficult for anyone, regardless of experience, to tell you how long it would take you specifically to commission through the ranks be selected (if at all) when you applied.



Just getting you used to having your stuff 'staffed'  ;D.


----------



## jemcgrg

Those corrections seem unnecessary.


----------



## George Wallace

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> Those corrections seem unnecessary.



At the same time, not everyone is going to be whatever they want to be, no matter what their Mothers told them.


----------



## jemcgrg

Most definitely. And I certainly wasn't implying that they would. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> At the same time, not everyone is going to be whatever they want to be, no matter what their Mothers told them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> Those corrections seem unnecessary.



Well, Sheldon, sorry for an attempt at humour which apparently is not jiving with your logic.


----------



## MJP

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> Those corrections seem unnecessary.



More Lolz....


----------



## jemcgrg

Your attempt at humour was certainly lost on me. My apologies. People are very quick to criticize on this site which I thought was your intention as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nope!  I didn't swear _and_ I used a  ;D

No worries.  Just an attempt to welcome  you to the world of having everything you write staffed (assuming you hadn't before with so little TI).

Cheers and good luck!  (not being sarcastic)


----------



## jemcgrg

Thank you. Lol.  




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nope!  I didn't swear _and_ I used a  ;D
> 
> No worries.  Just an attempt to welcome  you to the world of having everything you write staffed (assuming you hadn't before with so little TI).
> 
> Cheers and good luck!  (not being sarcastic)


----------



## SkyZ

First off I would like to say that I have made an appointment with my BPSO but it isn't until Feb because apparently the BPSO office is extremely busy right now.

I am currently a Reg force member with 6 years of service and am looking to OT to MPO. I was looking on the forces website and it says "You will benefit from paid tuition, a full-time salary and benefits, second language training, an exciting career after graduation, and more opportunities than you can imagine." under paid education. It doesn't state if I need to pay for it myself first and get reimbursed or they will pay for it right out. I was wondering if someone could give me an answer.


----------



## Sully

SkyZ said:
			
		

> First off I would like to say that I have made an appointment with my BPSO but it isn't until Feb because apparently the BPSO office is extremely busy right now.
> 
> I am currently a Reg force member with 6 years of service and am looking to OT to MPO. I was looking on the forces website and it says "You will benefit from paid tuition, a full-time salary and benefits, second language training, an exciting career after graduation, and more opportunities than you can imagine." under paid education. It doesn't state if I need to pay for it myself first and get reimbursed or they will pay for it right out. I was wondering if someone could give me an answer.



I think that if you want to become an Officer that you should be able to conduct the necessary investigative and research work to make that happen within the framework of a favorable environment to yourself and to the benefit of the CAF. I think that it would be in your best interest to apply for an ILP online asking for approval of funding in order to prove your scholarly capabilities (usually at least two university credits for commissioning plans) necessary to apply to make the jump. After successfully demonstrating your academia and Officer like attributes to your CoC, you can then submit a request to become an Officer under one of the existing programs within the CAF. A desire to fully research all of your options, and only after careful consideration to determine the best path considering your circumstances and experience,will you be in a position to step back and consider your options. I am not trying to be an *******, I am trying to provide you with a reality check to facilitate your endeavor. In all seriousness, good luck! Think through all aspects before committing. It is also to important to realize that as an Officer (or any leader) that your priorities are with your men and women and not yourself.


----------



## ModlrMike

Further to the last post, you CAN NOT complete an occupation transfer from NCM to Officer. You can access one of several commissioning progammes. I would suggest that you look up the requirements for UTPNCM and develop a plan to attain your goal that way.


----------



## Jamie2319

Hello, my question is, if I joined as a ncm and then decided I wanted to go to university so I could become an officer, will the military still pay for my university? Is it even possible to do that upgrade?


----------



## The questioner

Greetings,

I am currently on the process of applying to be in a Canadian Forces reserve unit as an Infantry soldier. I am also a first year student in a university. My question would be if I do continue my application as an infantry soldier, would I be able to apply to be an officer further down, either during my education tenure (undergrad, grad, etc.) or after I've finished my university education?

If so, how would I go about it? Would it be more difficult to apply as an officer in a reserve (or regular) unit as an NCM infantry soldier?

Thanks in advance for any help provided.


----------



## krimynal

this question has been answered at least 2000 times .... just read the previous 18 pages .... and you will find all the answer you need .... as an Officer you should be able to do that !


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

krimynal said:
			
		

> this question has been answered at least 2000 times .... just read the previous 18 pages .... and you will find all the answer you need .... as an Officer you should be able to do that !



Truth is I merged his post here so he/she wouldn't have seen them from this post....................however, with a little initiative on their own it would have been easy to find and read.

'Questioner",....you will find initiative a wonderful thing if you wish to continue in this field, and your further studies.


----------



## Flyingboy444

Hey, I have few questions and I would like some advice.

1. I'm in the 12th grade now and i'm planning to attend university next year. Can I apply to become an artillery office at my local reserve unit? Or, do I have to wait till next year? 

2. I will be an accounting student. So, will being an officer help me learn more new skills that I can apply to an accounting job vs being a NCM?

3. How much responsibility will I have if I was an officer (paperwork wise and week to week commitment). 

4. If possible could someone explain me all of the courses I need to take to be an artillery officer. 

5. My dad said that NCMs are looked down to by the officers. Is this true? 

I have talked to a recruiter but mostly about a NCM role. 

Thank you!!!!!


----------



## Dissident

Flyingboy444 said:
			
		

> 5. My dad said that NCMs are looked down to by the officers. Is this true?



Does your father have military experience?


----------



## Flyingboy444

Not Canadian military experience but ya. That's maybe why.


----------



## krimynal

if you want to become anytype of Officer , you would know that first step is to LOOK for answers , not waiting on people to spoon feed you , use the search button on the site , there as been around 1000 post about the same exact topic and questions .... 

start doing the bare minimum !


----------



## jeffb

And to get you started, check out the artillery sub-forum. After that, if you have any questions feel free to PM me. 

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/board,2.0.html


----------



## snowblack

Hi, I am struggling to decide on the path of becoming a NCM or Officer. I spoke to my reserve unit in my area and mentioned about being an officer. They advised me about becoming an NCM because being an officer is all about paperwork and a NCM receives more hands on training. However, when I met with the recruiter at the recruiting branch, he advised me since I have completed a degree that being an officer is the most logical choice. I was hoping to grab some personal perspectives of those who have had to struggle with this choice. Further, I was wondering what someone would advise would be the furthest you should travel to a unit for reserves because my area has limited selection. As well, if I decide to transition to the regular force, how difficult is it to complete the merger, especially if you are changing occupations? The reserve choices I had are infantry and combat engineer. Both choices are extremely enticing, however if I did decide a full-time career in the forces is the right path for me I would love to try and get into firefighting. That also leads me to ask, if I become an officer in the reserves, can I revert back to being an NCM in the regular forces? The reserve unit I met with informed me that I cannot move down, but I can move from an NCM to an Officer later if I choose. I am just unsure if this applies to just maintaining my stay within the reserves? Thank you. I appreciate your time. Hopefully it does not appear that I am trying to get spoon fed. Just doing my best to get all the answers before I apply because I know this is a great opportunity and I don't want to make a mistake.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Officers learn many of the technical and tactical skills required for their trades, it's not just "about paperwork." The paperwork officers do is created to their responsibilities; for conducting training, for training soldiers, for managing soldiers careers, etc. Anyone who simplifies and dismisses the work officers do as "simply paperwork" knows little about the responsibilities officers have.

Try these links as a place to start exploring the differences between officers and non-commissioned members (NCM):

NCM vs Officer and NCM to Officer mega discussion

Officer Or NCO?

Officer/NCM differences

In the end, you have to decide which type of responsibilities you are best suited for.


----------



## runormal

It really depends on what you want to do. Do you plan and direct a bridging exercise or do you want to do hands on work and make the officers plan happen?

Lots of NCM`s either have degrees, masters or are working on them in some capacity so to go Officer solely because you have a degree is foolish IMO.

Based on my experience of *Signals Officers* at *my unit*, fresh new OCdt's seem to progress slowly (I'm not sure if this is their availability, lack of courses or just bad luck)  and they don't seem to get to participate as much as untrained privates do (Your mileage may vary). I'm not sure, but it would be something to look into. The courses are also longer so that may likely have something to do with it. However it does take quite sometime for an engineer NCM to become qualified, but based on what my friends from basic said once they have SQ/BMQ L they could do OJT. 

Personally for the most part I enjoy be an NCM, it has allowed me to test the waters and boost my confidence tremendously. I'm also at the point now where I am in charge of a tac rad detachment (2-3 guys), and have to ensure we have enough fuel, food, water and try to balance the sleep as much as possible between the troops. 

" As well, if I decide to transition to the regular force, how difficult is it to complete the merger, especially if you are changing occupations? The reserve choices I had are infantry and combat engineer. Both choices are extremely enticing, however if I did decide a full-time career in the forces is the right path for me I would love to try and get into firefighting."

Here is massive thread of Component Transfer's. http://army.ca/forums/threads/12797.0.html

In theory, it is a one page form with some information about you and your unit, it is not a hard a process however currently they are understaffed so communication is very minimal. There are spots allocated based on entry plans and you can see the entire intake plan it is called the SIP (Strategic Intake Plan). There are various entries plans for NCM trades such as NCM-SEP, CT(U) (Component Transfer untrained) , CT (T) (Component transfer trained) , External Etc. It isn't harder to submit a ct from Inf -> Inf CT (T) than Inf -> fire fighter CT (u), however there are typically more spots for CT (T) rather than CT (U).

Hopefully some other reserve NCM/Officers can chime and give their 5 cents.

Personally I like being an NCM as I get to to "do the job", however I have a CT in myself and I am constantly contemplating between NCM/Officer.

I have seen people in my unit go from MCPL -> 2Lt, Sgt - 2 Lt etc. It definitely can happen. If you want to start as an NCM and then eventually become an officer it is a possibility, however there will need both spots available and you will need to the support of your COC and proven that you can handle the job. 

Personally I'd recommend trying it as an NCM and see if you like it, however that is just my opinion. 

I'm not sure about the Res officer - > reg firefighter.

Good luck


----------



## aigooomona

No matter how many posts I dug out and read about soldier vs officer in artillery, I am still struggling to decide which one to take. 
I am currently first year in university but I never had a job as a leader. I read the posts, and some say that if you get accepted as a officer, then you should just take it as is. Others say that they would rather not follow someone who has no self-esteem, or just become officer because you have a bachelor. I have rather low self-esteem and kinda scared of being the one in charge of people but I am joining the army hoping for changes in myself.  Despite reading all those helpful information and talking to my recruiter, I still keep wondering which one I can take on. I obviously want to learn how to lead, and gain confidence in myself but at the same time I wonder if it's better to just chose the easier path. 

Anyone who started like me have some advice to give ? Thank you.


----------



## FJAG

I didn't "start like you" but I did become an officer in the artillery so perhaps some of what follows might be of assistance.

Very few individuals who enrol as officers come to the Forces with a strong leadership background. Usually they are younger people like yourself with an interest in the military and some minor leadership experience such as school councils or scouts and varying degrees of self confidence. True confidence, self esteem and leadership abilities are a product of the military training and years of experience which you get once you are in the Forces.

My own path started as a teenage gunner in a reserve artillery regiment where I learned the various jobs of an artilleryman. I also received training to become a junior non-commissioned officer where I learned, and after promotion, I practised the basic fundamentals of leadership. My four years with the reserves made it much easier when I decided that I wanted to become a regular force artillery officer. The experience helped me firstly in my application process, secondly in making my officer training easier and thirdly in making it easier to understand the lives of the troops which I led.

Joining in the ranks, is not choosing "the easier path". Life as a soldier is hard and while the degrees of responsibility vary from those of junior officers, junior and senior non commissioned members also need to have self confidence and self-esteem to do their jobs.

Nobody on in this forum can help you in deciding "what you can take on". We don't know you well enough as a person to understand what your current abilities are, nor do we have any crystal ball to help us predict what type of a person you will become. 

I would suggest that if you want to have a better ability to make your decision then join the reserves as a gunner and get a feel for what its like and what you are capable of doing. Nothing builds self esteem as much as putting your hand to something and succeeding at it.

Best of luck.

 :cheers:


----------



## aigooomona

Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for. Honestly, part of my indecision was for the title "officer" (no disrespect to anyone) in a CV or resume, people outside the army probably find it more impressive. However you are right. I should start as a soldier to understand the troupes I am leading. I was disappointed finding out that officer and soldier have completely different training. I wish I could become soldier but learn leadership too.


----------



## Kat Stevens

If you're a competent soldier, you will lead people in the future.


----------



## FJAG

aigooomona said:
			
		

> . . . I was disappointed finding out that officer and soldier have completely different training. I wish I could become soldier but learn leadership too.



In the army the training is not completely different at all. In the beginning officers take pretty much the same basic training and artillery skills training that all gunners do. In addition they also take leadership training and specialized artillery training that teaches them how do reconnaissance for and occupy gun positions, how to run a gun line during firing, how artillery fits tactically into the battlefield and various other skills. That can take the better part of a year to learn.

If you do go in as a gunner in the ranks you will still have the opportunity to learn leadership during non commissioned officers' training.

 :cheers:


----------



## ModlrMike

Having been an NCO, and now an officer, I can comfortably state that FJAG's remarks are spot on. The only other observation I would make is that Jr Officers are expected to progress to competence much faster than junior NCM. There is an expectation that by the time you have two fat bars on your shoulder you have more of your stuff together than a new promoted Cpl.


----------



## GnyHwy

Everything here so far is what you need to hear, and as you said, what you wanted to hear. 

Just speaking of Jnr O training, that is mostly segregated from NCM training, the training has the same foundations, maybe more so in the Arty than any other trade.  It is the actions or "verb" you are expected to be competent at, that changes.  For NCMs, especially at the lower levels, the verb will be "operate" or "conduct".  For Os at the lower levels it will be "lead" or "supervise".  NCMs will eventually do the "lead" once they've had some time to show potential.  NCMs will also be trained on the verb "instruct", "evaluate" and "mentor", and will be your instructors for the the majority of your Arty specific Jnr O training. 

Another way to look at it at the Jnr level is, NCMs will be expected to be masters of operating and troubleshooting systems, while Os will be expected to be masters of employing and deploying systems.


----------



## GreenWood

aigooomona said:
			
		

> I wonder if it's better to just chose the easier path.



I think you will be shocked when you realize that being an NCM is not really an "Easy" path


----------



## GnyHwy

In his defence, he did say "easier" and that is certainly relative to what a person might consider easy.  As an O, you will not spend as much time time humping ammo and weapons or building field defences, but conversely you will spend a hell of a lot more time reading, formulating and writing plans and still be expected to conduct the plan once in effect.  A matter of perspective I guess. 

One thing is for sure, if an O is doing his job to the fullest, they are getting less sleep!


----------



## NSDreamer

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> One thing is for sure, if an O is doing his job to the fullest, they are getting less sleep!



It's the development piece, I can't remember the last time I wasn't enrolled in some kind of professional development course on top of regular work...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GreenWood said:
			
		

> I think you will be shocked when you realize that being an NCM is not really an "Easy" path



Speaking from your wealth of experience?  Your kind really cracks me up.

http://Army.ca/forums/threads/12797/post-1355157.html#msg1355157


----------



## GreenWood

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Speaking from your wealth of experience?  Your kind really cracks me up.
> 
> http://Army.ca/forums/threads/12797/post-1355157.html#msg1355157



I wasn't speaking from a wealth of experience, my experience can be seen just by clicking my profile. I was just giving an opinion, that I don't think there really is an "easy" way in which ever route he decides to take his military career.


----------



## Flavus101

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Speaking from your wealth of experience?  Your kind really cracks me up.
> 
> http://Army.ca/forums/threads/12797/post-1355157.html#msg1355157



Do you disagree with his statement? I couldn't tell from that post.


----------



## ElecEngGirl

Argyll 2347 said:
			
		

> I have been debating for a while what to do with my life after High School.  Everyone wants me to go to RMC and get a degree.  The thing is that I don‘t want to become an officer, I have fallen in love with the Field work and exercises that the NCM does.  I can‘t make up my mind but I‘m leaning towards the Reserves and then Reg Force (Argylls for reserves and RCR for Reg).  What is all your opinions?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Argyll 2347



When it comes down to it, it's all up to you. Choices like these should not be forced onto you by friends and family members. I'm currently a student at RMC. I remember back in First Year when we all just arrived. We had a few guys that immediately released from the Forces because they realized RMC was not for them, even after all those months going through the recruiting process. Then again over the last couple of years we've easily lost almost 20 people in my year, what with people just realizing they didn't like the field, they didn't like the leadership aspect, they didn't like academics...etc. 

My advice: do what your heart tells you to do. If you've fallen in love with field work and hands on stuff, by all means, go for it! Regardless whether you're an Officer or an NCM, both will bring you absolutely amazing careers. It's much better to do a job you'll love. 

Although, as another option, you could apply to RMC. If you get in, you can do your 4 years of free education and gain military experience as an officer, and then after graduation transfer over to NCM. This would give you the opportunity to hone in on your leadership skills.

Hope everything works out,


----------



## Loachman

Argyll's either managed to figure it out in the fourteen-and-a-bit years since he posted his question, or he's wandered off and found something else to do. His account is no longer active, either way.


----------



## PuckChaser

ElecEngGirl said:
			
		

> Although, as another option, you could apply to RMC. If you get in, you can do your 4 years of free education and gain military experience as an officer, and then after graduation transfer over to NCM. This would give you the opportunity to hone in on your leadership skills.



Pretty sure that's not possible. Relinquishing a commission is not something to take likely. You're also not getting real experience as an officer because you're in the training system. Think of RMC as 4 years of Basic Officer Training combined with university. Your real education is when you hit the real CAF, in a real job, leading real soldiers/sailors/airmen/airwomen.


----------



## sidemount

Not to mention the obligitory service as an officer that you inherit.


----------



## DAA

ElecEngGirl said:
			
		

> Although, as another option, you could apply to RMC. If you get in, you can do your 4 years of free education and gain military experience as an officer, and then after graduation transfer over to NCM. This would give you the opportunity to hone in on your leadership skills.



If only it were that simple............

When I worked at a training establishment, we had various creative ways to deal with these situations.  The first being "Go ahead and submit your request for Voluntary Release but be prepared to reimburse the Crown for your education" or my favourite of the SRB route which usually ended up as "Not recommended for any further Officer occupational training.  Recommended for retention as a MOC ZULU Officer for the remaining period of obligatory service".  Nothing like having a 2Lt on staff to do data input/filing jobs for the next 4 years.


----------



## Blake Castelein

I've seen a few articles and even read people on army.ca saying there is a very top heavy ratio of officers to NCM, so for someone who doesn't mind either route would applying as an NCM be more beneficial and/or helpful to the CAF?

(Apologies in advance if this has already been answered and/or is a dumb question)


----------



## Ayrsayle

Not entirely sure with what intent you are asking:

Helpful to the CAF?  The CAF needs both and ultimately you choosing to join as an officer or NCM isn't going to change the systemic structure of the CAF as a whole.  In short (and in my opinion), you'd be better served joining in whatever particular stream you think you'd be best at and would ultimately find the most rewarding.  That would serve the needs of the CAF as a whole better then picking a stream solely based on opinions on this forum.

There is a saying in the Army - "everyone can be replaced".  

Beneficial?  That would depend on what you want to do in the CAF and what in particular you have as career goals.


----------



## Blake Castelein

Ayrsayle said:
			
		

> Not entirely sure with what intent you are asking:
> 
> Helpful to the CAF?  The CAF needs both and ultimately you choosing to join as an officer or NCM isn't going to change the systemic structure of the CAF as a whole.  In short (and in my opinion), you'd be better served joining in whatever particular stream you think you'd be best at and would ultimately find the most rewarding.  That would serve the needs of the CAF as a whole better then picking a stream solely based on opinions on this forum.
> 
> There is a saying in the Army - "everyone can be replaced".
> 
> Beneficial?  That would depend on what you want to do in the CAF and what in particular you have as career goals.



Okay! Thank you, you're right I wasn't very specific with my question. I'm torn between combat engineer or infantry, and again still pondering between NCM or officer. Thank you for the insight, I never really looked at it that way.


----------



## RussTheMann

Hey everyone,
so Im currently in the middle of my degree, and I know I want to join the forces after I graduate. But I also know that Im stuck between becoming an NCM and an Officer. I want to be an NCM (infantry) for the wide variety of courses I can take, be the whole "boots on the ground" idea and be one of the guys. But I also enjoy the larger leadership capabilities of an officer, the consistency of the job and how it'd be easier to turn it into your career. and lets be honest, the pay isn't that bad either. What my real question is, is it bad or taboo to be an NCM then re-enlist as an officer? Or is there a large amount of scrutiny placed on people who do that. Any and all answers accepted!


----------



## George Wallace

Twenty-two (22) pages here should give you some ideas.


----------



## Ayrsayle

RussTheMann said:
			
		

> Hey everyone,
> so Im currently in the middle of my degree, and I know I want to join the forces after I graduate. But I also know that Im stuck between becoming an NCM and an Officer. I want to be an NCM (infantry) for the wide variety of courses I can take, be the whole "boots on the ground" idea and be one of the guys. But I also enjoy the larger leadership capabilities of an officer, the consistency of the job and how it'd be easier to turn it into your career. and lets be honest, the pay isn't that bad either. What my real question is, is it bad or taboo to be an NCM then re-enlist as an officer? Or is there a large amount of scrutiny placed on people who do that. Any and all answers accepted!



So - Standard caveats apply in that your questions have been answered in detail multiple times.  Items starred are personal opinion. In summary:

NCM to Officer is not a guaranteed process at any stage (read into the various methods in which it can happen).  Breaking service to "re-enlist" can have a detrimental impact on "turning it into a career" from a financial standpoint, etc.  

*Taboo?  I've known a few NCMs (Two Sgts, and a WO) who have expressed interest in making the jump.  The Two Sgts were talked out of it/realized they would be more fulfilling careers as NCMs.  The WO just recently had his application approved.  The WO gets a few jabs here and there, but it is largely good natured.  I highly doubt you will be able to play the "I have no idea what is going on" card as a former NCM - You've already seen (and most likely performed) leadership tasks throughout your career.  There is no "bad" - there are some excellent Officers who were former NCMs and there are some poor ones.  Look for stories on this board for more details.

*Leadership comes from both sides of the house - NCMs and Officers both provide/handle leadership tasks.  Officers "tend" to move around more then NCMs, especially during the start of their careers (An infantry NCM, as an example, will likely remain within his Bn until he has become a senior Cpl/MCpl.)  While the transition to "leadership responsibilities" may be more gradual on the NCM side, those that show capabilities in this regard usually move up the ranks to hold them, etc.  I've worked with many NCMs who have degrees - absolutely no stigma attached to their choices (in truth, some days I envy them).  

If it is solely opinions you are looking for regarding how former NCMs are seen however, the topic/questions would probably be better in the "personal stories" area.  If you had questions about the Infantry Officer job in general - Technoviking's posts are an excellent place to start.  As is George Wallace's point.


----------



## Aaron97

Hello I have a question regarding CFR (going from NCM to Officer)

I have begun my application for the Canadian Forces as a Supply Technician reservist. I have just completed the aptitude test and am awaiting the results. I noticed a few questions on the test were likely to be Officer characteristic questions (measuring intellectual, interest on politics, leadership, etc) My concern is my plan is to do Reserves until I obtain my Bachelors in Law & Criminology and am appointed to a Provincial Law Bar (whatever it's called). Afterwards, I would like to CFR to Officer as a Regular member. 

Are my chances of being an officer ruined because of this aptitude test?

I also heard that most Officer's who were NCM's are seldomly promoted past Captain or are ever given senior appointments due to them being former NCM's.  

Will my troops like the fact that I was a former ncm and now an officer?


----------



## Pusser

Aaron97 said:
			
		

> Hello I have a question regarding CFR (going from NCM to Officer)
> 
> I have begun my application for the Canadian Forces as a Supply Technician reservist. I have just completed the aptitude test and am awaiting the results. I noticed a few questions on the test were likely to be Officer characteristic questions (measuring intellectual, interest on politics, leadership, etc) My concern is my plan is to do Reserves until I obtain my Bachelors in Law & Criminology and am appointed to a Provincial Law Bar (whatever it's called). Afterwards, I would like to CFR to Officer as a Regular member.
> 
> Are my chances of being an officer ruined because of this aptitude test?
> 
> I also heard that most Officer's who were NCM's are seldomly promoted past Captain or are ever given senior appointments due to them being former NCM's.
> 
> Will my troops like the fact that I was a former ncm and now an officer?



The CF Apptitude Test is the same for everyone.  As far as I know, the results have an expiry date, so it may depend on how long ago you wrote it as to whether it makes a difference in your application for officer training.  If the results are not up to snuff, you may be allowed to re-write it.  Please note that I am not familiar with how the CFAT is used in commissioning programs for applicants who are already members of the CF.  However, when I "transferred" from Reserve NCM to Regular officer many years ago, I was effectively treated as a new applicant and I wrote the CFAT for my Regular Force application (never actually wrote one for the Reserve).  When my application was rejected the first time, I did not have to write it again a year later.

You're confusing your terminology a little bit.  "Commissioning from the Ranks" (CFR) is a specific program applicable only to sergeants/petty officers 2nd class and above.  It is a merit based program that targets individuals whose training and experience have shown them to be suitable for service as an officer.  Technically speaking, one does not apply for a CFR.  One is selected/approached (although folks who are interested usually make their wishes known and so the chain of command may turn around and pursue it on the member's "request").  CFR is only used for officers who will be employed in similar fields as their former NCM occupations (i.e. an NCM Sup Tech can only CFR to Logistics Officer).

Former service as an NCM has absolutely no bearing on one's upward mobility as an officer.  The fact that I'm not an admiral has NOTHING to do with the fact that I was once a leading seaman.  The reason some CFR officers may not reach lofty heights has more to do with time.  If they commission late in their careers, they simply may not have time to get too high before they retire.

Your subordinates will likely not care in the slightest that you were once an NCM, unless you're a jerk about it.


----------



## dimsum

Pusser said:
			
		

> Your subordinates will likely not care in the slightest that you were once an NCM, unless you're a jerk about it.



Related to this, don't be "that guy" who says "well I'm this NCM trade now, but I'll be that Officer trade later".


----------



## MeunierConsole01

Hello !

I am in the process of applying for the primary reserves as an artillery soldier. I applied first as an officer but I failed my cfat by 4 points to be qualified, so the recruiting agent gave me the option to apply as an NCM instead. I wanted to re-do the my cfat again but the problem is that I applied 8 years ago in another province for another trade, when I was much, much younger. At that time I didn't qualified for officer too and my eyesight was not good enough to enter the cf. Since then I got a university degree, got my eyes lased up, and am currently doing a master degree. I had difficulties with the spatial reasoning and time management; instead of going to the next question I was staying on the same one for too long. The recruiter told me that if I contact the recruiting center and explain them that I did some extensive practice to get a better result at my cfat, they could give me a 3rd last chance. But for now I'll have to stick to the NCM option. Right now I'm evaluating my options and I'm wondering if the NCM route could be a good option too, considering that I would like to transfer into the reg force after I'll have my master degree. I'm just bummed to be blocked by 4 missing points after having spent a lot of time studying in university... But I dont make the rules. What could be the main benefits or disadvantages of being an NCM vs an Officer and vice versa ? What are the main factors that makes for a quick versus slow career progression as an NCM ? I talked with various persons that were in the army (officers and NCO's) and all telled me to take the officer route. More rewarding, more responsibilities, better pay etc.. One officer even told me that there's a lot of bitchin' between NCM and that I won't be challenged intellectually, for someone who comes from a university route. Kind of disappointing to hear that ! I can't comment on those statements but if someone could give me their opinion on these it would be appreciated !

Thanks for the advices.


----------



## mariomike

MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> I am in the process of applying for the primary reserves





			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> The recruiter told me that if I contact the recruiting center and explain them that I did some extensive practice to get a better result at my cfat, they could give me a 3rd last chance.



I was unsuccessful with my cfat twice. 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/107846.0



			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> What could be the main benefits or disadvantages of being an NCM vs an Officer and vice versa ?



You may find these discussions of interest,

Officer/NCM differences  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/171.0
22 pages.

Reserves: Officer or NCM?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/105093.0

Joining the reserve as an officer versus joining as an NCM  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/23749.0

See also,

Officer versus NCM
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++ncm+officer&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=cVauVrulFYqN8QfbsKTgAw&gws_rd=ssl



			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> What are the main factors that makes for a quick versus slow career progression as an NCM ?



Questions about Artillery NCM duties and career progression  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/104289.0

NCM to Officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/83194.0

NCM to Officer advancement  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85134.0

NCM to OFFICER plan  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/88220.0
4 pages.

Upgrading from NCM to Officer  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/116536.0

From NCM to Officer. 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/116374.0

Reserve NCM to Officer Transfers  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119673.0

etc...

NCM to Officer
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++ncm+officer&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=cVauVrulFYqN8QfbsKTgAw&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca++ncm+to+officer+

Is this still what you have in mind?


			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> so maybe somebody with experience could tell me if applying for artillery soldier in a res. unit and immediately asking for a CT into armour officer while going to school at the same time is feasible. Maybe it's too complicated and I should just apply for armour officer straight away but I thought that military experience as an NCM with a master degree in my pocket could get me extra points if I find that the CF is really what I want, full time.



_As always,_ your most trusted source of information is Recruiting.


----------



## MeunierConsole01

Thanks for the links ! Some of the questions asked got unanswered too, and the situation for these people might be different from mine; I got some useful info out them though. As for the post you quoted me on, I took the decision to enroll as an artillery officer after having this first reflexion a couple of months ago. Since there is no reserve armour unit in my area, I chose artillery and I would be interested to transfer into the regular within the same branch of the army.


----------



## mariomike

MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links !



You are welcome. Good luck.


----------



## runormal

All information is based off a reserve ACISS as an NCM




			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> Hello !
> 
> Right now I'm evaluating my options and I'm wondering if the NCM route could be a good option too, considering that I would like to transfer into the reg force after I'll have my master degree.



Definitely isn't a bad go as an NCM. Depends what you want to do. WRT to your transfer just make sure you are in the right trade. when you swear in. Combining a Component transfer with an Occupational Transfer isn't a route_ I'd advise._ If you stay the same trade it _shouldn't_ be too bad however. Just do what you can to be fully trained before you transfer. 




			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> What are the main factors that makes for a quick versus slow career progression as an NCM ?




Big thing is drive / attitude if you show up on time and put a constant effort in you will get out of the reserves what you put into it. With that being said typically everyone gets cpl's at the 2 year mark. PLQ and MCpl/MBdr depends on the unit. Some units it is the best people go, other units it depends who is available. That being said even if you get loaded on PLQ it doesn't mean you'll pass. From my friends that have done it recently they being fairly strict with assessing (which is a good thing). One course you really want to get is your drivers course, that just makes you that much more employable. 



			
				MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> I talked with various persons that were in the army (officers and NCO's) and all telled me to take the officer route. More rewarding, more responsibilities, better pay etc.. One officer even told me that there's a lot of bitchin' between NCM and that I won't be challenged intellectually, for someone who comes from a university route. Kind of disappointing to hear that ! I can't comment on those statements but if someone could give me their opinion on these it would be appreciated !



Depends on the trade/position I'm in. It is true that there are times when I'm bored out of my mind but there are also times when my shifts fly by. The same can be said about the duty-Officer that is right beside me. There are also times when I was glad I wasn't the duty officer and likewise there are also times when I would of done things differently.

I've worked with the artillery once, it was a neat experience.


----------



## Ayrsayle

MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> Hello !
> 
> I am in the process of applying for the primary reserves as an artillery soldier. I applied first as an officer but I failed my cfat by 4 points to be qualified, so the recruiting agent gave me the option to apply as an NCM instead. I wanted to re-do the my cfat again but the problem is that I applied 8 years ago in another province for another trade, when I was much, much younger. At that time I didn't qualified for officer too and my eyesight was not good enough to enter the cf. Since then I got a university degree, got my eyes lased up, and am currently doing a master degree. I had difficulties with the spatial reasoning and time management; instead of going to the next question I was staying on the same one for too long. The recruiter told me that if I contact the recruiting center and explain them that I did some extensive practice to get a better result at my cfat, they could give me a 3rd last chance. But for now I'll have to stick to the NCM option. Right now I'm evaluating my options and I'm wondering if the NCM route could be a good option too, considering that I would like to transfer into the reg force after I'll have my master degree. I'm just bummed to be blocked by 4 missing points after having spent a lot of time studying in university... But I dont make the rules. What could be the main benefits or disadvantages of being an NCM vs an Officer and vice versa ? What are the main factors that makes for a quick versus slow career progression as an NCM ? I talked with various persons that were in the army (officers and NCO's) and all telled me to take the officer route. More rewarding, more responsibilities, better pay etc.. One officer even told me that there's a lot of bitchin' between NCM and that I won't be challenged intellectually, for someone who comes from a university route. Kind of disappointing to hear that ! I can't comment on those statements but if someone could give me their opinion on these it would be appreciated !
> 
> Thanks for the advices.



Disclosure - I'm an Infantry Officer currently working with a Reserve Unit.

NCMs are technical specialists, Officers are Operational specialists (at least in theory).  If you are interested in doing and seeing direct results (and a lot of it) I'd recommend the NCM route.  If you'd rather plan and theorize (assume the responsibilities for that plan), etc - Officer route will provide more of that.  NCMs often become specialists in particular areas and get a depth of technical knowledge an officer is unlikely to rival, while an officer will often become a generalist with a broad awareness of knowledge across the CAF.  Can only speak for my own area (Infantry Officer), but there is a reason why at nearly every level an Officer is paired with an NCO - they have very different skillsets and (ideally) rely on each other to handle whatever the job requires.

But don't mistake the fact that an education somehow makes you better at one or the other - I've worked with University educated officers who I wouldn't be comfortable with them planning much of anything, and some truly impressive tactical minds who never graduated high school.  There are many NCMs with university degrees and still a few Officers who don't have a degree either.  One of my personal frustrations when interviewing potential officer candidates is they feel they "deserve" being an officer because they have university education.  Do what you like to do, not what you feel your background says you should do.

Reg Force Officers will usually end up being moved around more often - largely due to the lack of positions in a single area for their progression and professional development.  NCM's will often, especially at the beginning of their career, end up being able to continue their development in a single area due to the number of positions available and the nature of becoming a technical specialist.

Echoing runormal - The Reserves are a great place to start a military career as long as you put as much into it as you want to get out of it.  You will need to be prepared for the fact that when your transfer goes through, you will (depending on how long you are with the reserves) end up losing your rank on the transfer.  The courses you complete are based of the Reg Force standard and (normally) you'll keep your qualifications you've completed, but after only working a week night and maybe a weekend a month your total time in will not be the same as someone of the same rank in the Reg Force.  The flip side is a motivated and capable Reserve soldier often has opportunities that his Reg Force peer may not have - courses, promotion (and the career courses that go with it), etc.

Keep reading on the site - there are lots of other perspectives on the NCM/NCO-Officer debate.

Good luck!


----------



## CombatMacguyver

MeunierConsole01 said:
			
		

> ... and that I won't be challenged intellectually, for someone who comes from a university route.



That depends entirely on what trade you're going into.  I can tell you first hand there are days as an EO-Tech you WILL leave with a headache (depending on where you're posted).  I'm sure my blueberry-brothers (AVS) can concur.

You'll also find plenty of NCM's that have college and/or university education.


----------



## GnyHwy

I would agree that you won't be challenged intellectually as an NCM, mostly at the Jnr level. As you move up there is more opportunity to challenge yourself intellectually, but run the risk of being stigmatized as a nerd that lacks leadership. As mentioned, there are NCM jobs that are intellectual, such as EO Tech and Sigs etc.; especially Sigs now with our attempt to network everything. 

If you are looking for philosophical conversations, then NCM will not satisfy you. The NCM side is very practical, usually cut and dry, and hands on with little ambiguity. If you like ambiguity, then go O. 

As you mentioned Arty, I will speak to that specifically. Once again, there is plenty of room to be intellectual in the NCM Arty realm, but you will run the risk of being classified as a nerd. IMO the Arty needs more technically sound persons, to the point that I would say we are deficient. Os do not engage in technicalities much, unless they have the background (math and computer science). Os also run the risk of being categorized as a nerd. Officers and higher NCM ranks tend to gravitate towards the social side of problem solving.    

That all said, there are plenty of NCMs that I put up for an IQ test against Os anytime.

If you have Arty specific questions, PM me anytime.


----------



## InfOCand

Hi everyone,

This being my first post, I'm a current officer candidate at CFLRS for INF and had a question for any experienced officers or NCMs very familiar with the INF officer trade.

Obviously, there are many threads dedicated to the differences between being an officer versus being a NCM, and after many weeks here at CFLRS, it's becoming less and less enticing to become an officer.  

A little more info for context: I'm currently in the upper weeks of the BMOQ course and have done over 50% of the PCs required for graduation and multiple trips to Farnham.  I've also been course senior (CPC) and every other leadership role in the course.

I know that being in the course is NOT a good representation of what my career may involve should I be successful in graduating and making it through the other phases.  I also know I have ZERO experience compared to any CF member and would never suppose otherwise.

This all being said, I'm troubled by certain aspects of the officer position.  The way BMOQ shows the officer role is not the way I had imagined.  I love the idea of leading by example and maintaining a very high standard for myself and those around me, as well as helping everyone achieve the standards necessary (for this course, for example).  BUT what I was critiqued for, often and somewhat severely, was that I was too active in helping my subordinates as a leader.  From the way our NCOs on the course speak, officers lead from the rear and can't even think about getting dirty or physically helping any of their subordinates.  Not only that, we are sequestered so we're not too close to our subordinates.  The officers that are connected to our platoon also seem to insinuate these points often.

With regards to recruiting, I'm not convinced.  Obviously there are those who can come out of training (BMOQ/phases 2, 3, 4) and be competent enough to perform exercises fairly well with their units.  While I think I can do that, my issue is having Sergeants and Warrants under my command with sometimes over 20 years experience and being somehow "above" them in the hierarchy without having earned it.  I don't like this idea either.  I didn't grow up wealthy or priveleged and this almost feels wrong.

Down to the point, have any officers (in any trade, really) relate to these feelings and provide any advice?  I'm scheduling a meeting with my platoon 2IC (a PO1) to see what he thinks, but I'm seriously considering an attempted transfer to INF NCM.  I've never been wealthy and money doesn't matter to me versus life experience, but sometimes I get the feeling that the officer route might not be the best.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## mariomike

InfOCand said:
			
		

> I'm seriously considering an attempted transfer to INF NCM.



You may find these discussions of interest,

Switching from Officer to NCM ???  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25874.0

CT from Officer to NCM  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/58555.0

Officer to NCM  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/59171.0

Switching from Officer to NCM question on pay and rank  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/96892.0

Infantry soldier vs. Infantry officer  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/121378.0

Career advice - DEO Infantry Officer vs. NCM Infantry  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/110913.0

Officer/NCM differences  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/171.475
23 pages.

etc...


----------



## ballz

InfOCand said:
			
		

> The way BMOQ shows the officer role is not the way I had imagined.  I love the idea of leading by example and maintaining a very high standard for myself and those around me, as well as helping everyone achieve the standards necessary (for this course, for example).  BUT what I was critiqued for, often and somewhat severely, was that I was too active in helping my subordinates as a leader.  From the way our NCOs on the course speak, officers lead from the rear and can't even think about getting dirty or physically helping any of their subordinates.



I assure you any officer in the Infantry Corps worth his epaulette leads from the front, not the rear, and gets dirty and physical in the course of his job. An Officer needs to focus on the bigger picture, so a Pl Comd shouldn't be jumping into a stack behind rifleman #4 and clearing a room, but that does not mean he's not there with the troops in the conduct of the battle. But its not his job to worry about the room, its his job to worry about the building, the windows, the streets on each side, etc... and he can't do that if he's focussed on only one room and not what is outside of that room.

There are also different cultures within the CAF. I find a lot of the stuff I hear out of the Navy and Air Force just quacked, but its a different job and relationships need to be different. So depending on the trades of your course staff, they may all have different perspectives.



			
				InfOCand said:
			
		

> With regards to recruiting, I'm not convinced.  Obviously there are those who can come out of training (BMOQ/phases 2, 3, 4) and be competent enough to perform exercises fairly well with their units.  While I think I can do that, my issue is having Sergeants and Warrants under my command with sometimes over 20 years experience and being somehow "above" them in the hierarchy without having earned it.  I don't like this idea either.  I didn't grow up wealthy or priveleged and this almost feels wrong.



As long as you are already self-aware of this, you are probably okay. This is not the army that deployed to the Boer War any more, Officers don't come from a different class of society and Officers don't show up to Bn as superior human beings. Those who do think they are, find out quickly they are not. However, if you don't have the confidence to be the person that makes the final decision and accepts the responsibility for that decision, then only you can make that call after some reflection. I can honestly say though that you should be second-guessing this to some extent, so that's normal.



			
				InfOCand said:
			
		

> Down to the point, have any officers (in any trade, really) relate to these feelings and provide any advice?



As an Infantry Officer, I had similar thoughts. I worried that the training provided was inadequate, and that being in command of some hard-charging, seasoned Warrant Officers and Sergeants and others was going to be an insurmountable barrier to overcome, not having shared their experiences with them and whatnot. But you aren't really challenging yourself if there is no shred of doubt in your own mind. In hindsight, the training was actually really good, and I showed up to the Battalion with more knowledge of platoon and company level operations than perhaps I had given myself credit for.

My only advice is to continue until you are complete BMOQ-L at the very least, if not Phase III. This will give you a better perspective on the army's way of doing things, and the Infantry's way of doing things, and more time to reflect inward. If you decide to change jobs, having these courses will only help you as you progress as an infantryman (as long as you stay humble, of course).


----------



## sidemount

I can tell you from experience that leading from the rear is the best thing in the world....if you want to lose the respect of your troops. The best officers I have worked with share in all the hardships and lead by example. 

As well don't think of yourself above those sgts and WOs. The idea is that once you are at battalion you are a team working together to achieve the same goals. You will learn from them and in turn you will become a better officer because of it.

The way things go at BMOQ is not what it will be like at a unit.

Id personally wait until you are at a unit to see what it is actually like and make your decision then. Yes you can switch from officer to NCM. Before I made the switch from NCM to officer I had the pleasure of having a guy work for me that did just that. And in my opinion he would have been a great officer to work for if he didnt switch, and it was  attitude that made all the difference.


----------



## ModlrMike

The important thing to remember here is that there is the "school way" and the "real way". Frequently the two are at odds. Stick with it. You'll learn your most valuable and useful lessons once you start working with your troops.


----------



## Jarnhamar

This list puts hierarchy in to perspective for me.



> *Afghanistan KIA*
> Colonels     1
> Majors     3
> Captains     6
> Lieutenants     3
> Chief Warrant Officer     1
> Master Warrant Officer     1
> Warrant Officers     6
> Sergeants     18
> Master Corporals     16
> Privates/Corporals     104


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

InfOCand said:
			
		

> This all being said, I'm troubled by certain aspects of the officer position.  The way BMOQ shows the officer role is not the way I had imagined.  I love the idea of leading by example and maintaining a very high standard for myself and those around me, as well as helping everyone achieve the standards necessary (for this course, for example).  BUT what I was critiqued for, often and somewhat severely, was that I was too active in helping my subordinates as a leader.  From the way our NCOs on the course speak, officers lead from the rear and can't even think about getting dirty or physically helping any of their subordinates.  Not only that, we are sequestered so we're not too close to our subordinates.  The officers that are connected to our platoon also seem to insinuate these points often.
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Welcome to Army.ca and indeed welcome to the Army.

You've received some excellent advice from Sidemount and ballz! Pay heed to their comments.

I know extremely little about you, but I sense that you are going through a crisis of confidence on your BMOQ. You note that you have been critiqued "somewhat severely" by your staff on your leadership techniques in that you get too involved. Can I guess that when you are in charge of a small party task or course admin activity that you are in there doing the physical work? Is this because some candidates are not able to do some tasks it as quickly or effectively as you? When you are the Course Senior are you doing "station jobs" yourself or are you assigning tasks and then supervising? If your small party task involves setting a up a Modular Tent are you the one doing most of the work while your subordinates watch?

Being a leader, at any rank level, involves knowing when it is appropriate to pitch in and when it is more appropriate to take a step back and supervise. There is certainly a time and place for a leader to set up modular tents with the group or help out with the heavy lifting. Usually, however, an officer should be maintaining his attention across the group's activities while remaining aware of issues "up and out" and not just focusing "down and in." 

If you have six subordinates and one is not able to do the task as well as you can you have more options available than to just jump in and do his job for him. If you have time you could use one of your other more skilled subordinates to mentor the individual on the task. You could switch up the tasks to put people where their talents are best employed. You could mentor them off-line if they are open to it. Stepping in to do the task yourself should be the last resort. Bear in mind, though, that a BMOQ is not a really good approximation of a real infantry platoon. At the end of the day you are all peers on your course!

The staff are trying to help you develop your leadership techniques. They are very good at it. Heed their counsel and don't go into a navel-gazing tailspin. 

Good luck,

T2B


----------



## SAFTY

I'm in the process of signing up to join my local engineering reserve regiment and I'm trying to figure out if I want to go Engineer Officer or Combat Engineer.

I have a B.Eng so I figured officer would be a natural fit, but I also don't want to be stuck at a desk doing administrative work more than I need to (I have previous Navy Reserve experience as an NCM, so I know that everyone gets their share of paperwork). Can anyone who is an Engineer Officer in the reserves share a little of their experience? What training opportunities do you get? What role do you play on exercises? Do you ever enviously look at the NCMs and wish you had their job instead?

Thanks!


----------



## mariomike

SAFTY said:
			
		

> I'm trying to figure out if I want to go Engineer Officer or Combat Engineer.



For reference, perhaps this will be merged with,

Officer vs Combat Engineer 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124365/post-1459315/topicseen.html#new
2 pages.


----------



## ton822

Hi to all, I'm not in the CF yet, planning to be a infantry officer or ncm reservist. I can't decide. I been reading some of the thread here the past few weeks. For my background, I'm a chef here in Regina, Sk. And I'm already 34 yrs. old. I have some questions.

What is the typical infantry officer career path?
What are the possible specialty or advanced training an officer can take? 
On their website http://www.forces.ca/en/job/infantryofficer-20 said they can do the Patrol Pathfinder course or Basic Parachutist and Free Fall courses.

Thank you.


----------



## mariomike

ton822 said:
			
		

> What is the typical infantry officer career path?



Infantry officer career path
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+infantry+officer+%22career+path%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8ygDWbv3LcmC8Qe43LjYAg&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+%22infantry+officer%22+%22career+path%22&spf=185

Forces.ca
Career Development
At the beginning of an Infantry Officers career, they serve either in a mechanized battalion equipped with armoured fighting vehicles or a light infantry battalion. They will be a Platoon Leader in command of 30 to 35 soldiers, and be responsible for the training and combat efficiency, discipline, morale, physical condition and well-being of the soldiers under their command.



			
				ton822 said:
			
		

> What are the possible specialty or advanced training an officer can take?



Infantry officer specializations
https://army.ca/forums/threads/107974.0

Forces.ca
Specialty Training 
Infantry Officers may be offered the opportunity to develop specialized skills through formal courses and on-the-job training to become a Platoon Commander. As well as command and control, an Infantry Platoon in the field and deployments. Selected Infantry Officers may also be offered the opportunity to acquire additional specialized skills such as completion of the Patrol Pathfinder course or Basic Parachutist and Free Fall courses.


----------



## dangerboy

mariomike said:
			
		

> Infantry officer career path
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+infantry+officer+%22career+path%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8ygDWbv3LcmC8Qe43LjYAg&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+%22infantry+officer%22+%22career+path%22&spf=185
> 
> Career Development
> At the beginning of an Infantry Officers career, they serve either in a mechanized battalion equipped with armoured fighting vehicles or a light infantry battalion. They will be a Platoon Leader in command of 30 to 35 soldiers, and be responsible for the training and combat efficiency, discipline, morale, physical condition and well-being of the soldiers under their command.



The first sentence only really applies to Regular Force Infantry Officers and not Reserve Force Infantry Officers.


----------



## mariomike

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The first sentence only really applies to Regular Force Infantry Officers and not Reserve Force Infantry Officers.



Thanks.

For the OP,

Infantry Officer ( Reserve )
http://www.forces.ca/en/job/infantryofficer-20

Realistic Expectations for a Reserve Infantry Officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/99404.0

Reserve Infantry Officer 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/115852.0

Reserve Infantry Officer - Rank potential and timelines
http://army.ca/forums/threads/29026.0

Reserve : Infantry Officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/108894.0

etc...


----------



## Lumber

ton822 said:
			
		

> Hi to all, I'm not in the CF yet, planning to be a infantry officer or ncm reservist. I can't decide. I been reading some of the thread here the past few weeks. For my background, I'm a chef here in Regina, Sk. And I'm already 34 yrs. old. I have some questions.
> 
> What is the typical infantry officer career path?
> What are the possible specialty or advanced training an officer can take?
> On their website http://www.forces.ca/en/job/infantryofficer-20 said they can do the Patrol Pathfinder course or Basic Parachutist and Free Fall courses.
> 
> Thank you.



Reserve Infantry NCM: Lots of rifle cleaning and pepper potting;
RegF Infantry Officer: Fields-Ex->Paperwork->Field-Ex->Paperwork (repeat)


----------



## ton822

I tried to use the search the button, but everytime I use it, I got an error it says Unable to access the search daemon.
Thank you for your replies. I appreciate all the info that you post.


----------



## mariomike

ton822 said:
			
		

> I tried to use the search the button, but everytime I use it, I got an error it says Unable to access the search daemon.
> Thank you for your replies. I appreciate all the info that you post.



I appreciate that you make the effort to search.

You may find this helpful,

site:milnet.ca 

Add the keyword(s) you are searching for.

Good luck.


----------



## Mahir0901

Hi I am a 16 year old in high school that would like to become an infantry soldier. I was wondering the difference between an infantry soldier and an infantry officer. Is it better to become an officer or an soldier and should I join after high school or after grade 10? The differences between NCM and Officer and are NCM looked down on?


----------



## mariomike

Mahir0901 said:
			
		

> I am a 16 year old in high school that would like to become an infantry soldier.



To apply to the Forces, you must:
1.Be a Canadian Citizen.
2.Be 17 years of age, with parental consent, or older, except: 
•Regular Officer Training Plan – Junior applications must be 16 or older.
•Reserve Force - Applicants may be 16 years of age if they are also enrolled as a full-time high school student.
3.Have completed at least Grade 10 or Secondaire IV (in Quebec). 
•Certain entry programs and occupations require higher levels of education. 



			
				Mahir0901 said:
			
		

> I was wondering the difference between an infantry soldier and an infantry officer.



Infantry Officer
https://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Infantry_Officer

Infantryman
https://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Infantryman



			
				Mahir0901 said:
			
		

> Is it better to become an officer or an soldier and should I join after high school or after grade 10?



The importance of education is stressed throughout these pages:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+education&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=iGksWc7wGYyN8Qfer4jADw&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## Infant_Tree

Blanking message, didn't see above response in merged thread.


----------



## SpecialOps

Hello Everyone,

I am new to the forum. I just have some questions regarding joining the primary reserve as an Officer Or NCM and hope someone could give me some insights.

I have a 3 year advanced diploma in computer systems technology, and I am also currently in my third year of bachelor degree for Networking and IT Security.

I would like to join the army either as a Signal Officer or Army Communication and Information Systems Specialist.

I have no prior related work experience. And I heard if you apply as an officer, you would need to go through an interview specifically for officer (I heard it's hard).

So would it be easier to get in as a NCM first and if I like it than I can apply to transfer as an officer later?

Thank you very much everyone! :cdnsalute:


----------



## Loachman

Welcome to Army.ca.

First advice: If you want to be taken seriously here, change your user name immediately.

Second advice: Start reading though relevant existing threads. Your questions, and many that you've not even thought of yet, have been discussed many times before. There is no need to rehash them. Doing so adds clutter to the Site, makes it harder for people who search, and costs responders their valuable time. Should you, despite an honest and thorough search, not find an answer, then post in the most relevant existing thread (if there is one) and somebody will provide. We are a helpful and supportive bunch, but we expect people to do their homework as well.


----------



## mariomike

SpecialOps said:
			
		

> So would it be easier to get in as a NCM first and if I like it than I can apply to transfer as an officer later?



Worth achieving higher NCM rank before going officer? 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/87609.0
3 pages.

Reservist process to change from NCM to Officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/105901.0

Transfer from NCM to Officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/123732.0

NCM -> Officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/87590.0

Changing from NCM to officer  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/111408.0

Officer vs. NCM  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/68813.0

Joining the reserve as an officer versus joining as an NCM  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/23749.0

NCM to Officer process  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/45209.0

etc...


----------



## Darkmachine

Hello everyone.

I am posting in hopes of getting some assistance from more experienced personnel. I am 35 years old and my entire life have been extremely fascinated with the military, representing my country, and fighting for the good of mankind. I have had lots of extensive training in close quarter combat, weapons training (have my PAL but have trained additionally with experts), I have also had the priviledge of knowing and training with individuals that served overseas for the CAF from 3RCR and were deployed to Afghanistan in both the 2003 Kabul deployment and Kandahar in 2008, have also trained with individuals who trained and taught the counter terrorism courses for the IDF, I did this because I was involved in a hostage situation where I was actually a hostage myself, held at gunpoint etc, and was able to get out of that situation, thankfully. At 35 I have secured myself financially so I am not joining the army because of the money, I could care less if I was paid or not, I just want to represent my country and do something that helps the lives of others. I recently (last week), completed my aptitude test and according to the recruiters scored extremely high in every department so I was told every trade is open to me, however, NCM trades as 18 years ago I decided not to do University - now my objective was to in the long run join CANSOFCOM and be a member of the special forces. At this point I am torn because I don't know what the best route is. I was initially interested in Intelligence but was told it will be almost impossible to go from intelligence to CANSOFCAM as they look for battle ready personnel. So here is my question, if I do Infantry, it's basically 14 months of training (what level of training will I get? How extensive will it be?), and am I losing anything by not getting my Uni degree and becoming an Officer? Do we really lose anything by not being an Officer? What is the core difference between NCM Infantry and an Officer? And also, if I was to join the Reserves, would I still get all of the same equal level of training as Ref Force? Just looking for some help here, I am not doing this for money at all, I am doing this because I want to protect my country, be the best I can be, and have the best combat training possible, was even considering doing the entire course at Tundra or Academi as well. Essentially I want to become a solid soldier, one that can make a heavy difference for his platoon and save lives. So my question is, Reg Force or Reserve? Is there any difference in the training provided? And NCM or do I do the Uni degree and become an Officer? I heard Officers are really not in the trenches and NCM are the door kickers - any help would be appreciated, and I sincerely apologize if I have asked any stupid questions.

Thank you!


----------



## mariomike

Darkmachine said:
			
		

> So my question is, Reg Force or Reserve?



Do you want a part-time job, or a full-time career?

Friendly Advice for potential Infantry Officer candidates  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/99437.0
5 pages.

Life as an Infantry Soldier?
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/1897.0.html
7 pages.

etc...

Many more Infantry discussions in the Infantry forum.


----------



## LightFighter

Darkmachine said:
			
		

> Hello everyone.
> 
> I am posting in hopes of getting some assistance from more experienced personnel. I am 35 years old and my entire life have been extremely fascinated with the military, representing my country, and fighting for the good of mankind. I have had lots of extensive training in close quarter combat, weapons training (have my PAL but have trained additionally with experts), I have also had the priviledge of knowing and training with individuals that served overseas for the CAF from 3RCR and were deployed to Afghanistan in both the 2003 Kabul deployment and Kandahar in 2008, have also trained with individuals who trained and taught the counter terrorism courses for the IDF, I did this because I was involved in a hostage situation where I was actually a hostage myself, held at gunpoint etc, and was able to get out of that situation, thankfully. At 35 I have secured myself financially so I am not joining the army because of the money, I could care less if I was paid or not, I just want to represent my country and do something that helps the lives of others.






			
				Darkmachine said:
			
		

> I recently (last week), completed my aptitude test and according to the recruiters scored extremely high in every department so I was told every trade is open to me, however, NCM trades as 18 years ago I decided not to do University - now my objective was to in the long run join CANSOFCOM and be a member of the special forces. At this point I am torn because I don't know what the best route is. I was initially interested in Intelligence but was told it will be almost impossible to go from intelligence to CANSOFCAM as they look for battle ready personnel.



That's completely untrue.  Any trade in the CAF can try out to be an Operator/Assaulter.  As well, there are Int Op/Int O positions within CANSOFCOM.  At this point, don't think to much about CANSOFCOM, as it is not in your immediate future.  Pick a trade you will enjoy doing, as you may not make it into CANSOFCOM or your feelings about doing it might change once you get in.  



			
				Darkmachine said:
			
		

> So here is my question, if I do Infantry, it's basically 14 months of training (what level of training will I get? How extensive will it be?), and am I losing anything by not getting my Uni degree and becoming an Officer? Do we really lose anything by not being an Officer? What is the core difference between NCM Infantry and an Officer? And also, if I was to join the Reserves, would I still get all of the same equal level of training as Ref Force?



Infantry is not 14 months of training to be fully trained.  As for what level/extensive it will be, I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here.  You will be trained to the standard set for DP1 Infantryman or Infantry Officer(DP1.1/DP1.2), which is the basics of your job required to be employable once you arrive in battalion.  You will gain more experience and skills while at your unit.  As for NCM or Officer, its really what you want to do, both are good options.  Officers are immediately placed into a leadership position, where as NCMs can work their way up to leadership. The Reserves would not get an equal level of training to the Regular Force(they do different courses initially, part time, etc), however there are opportunities(not always) to go on exercise with the Regular Force, as well as deployments(if any are available).  




			
				Darkmachine said:
			
		

> Just looking for some help here, I am not doing this for money at all, I am doing this because I want to protect my country, be the best I can be, and have the best combat training possible, was even considering doing the entire course at Tundra or Academi as well. Essentially I want to become a solid soldier, one that can make a heavy difference for his platoon and save lives. So my question is, Reg Force or Reserve? Is there any difference in the training provided? And NCM or do I do the Uni degree and become an Officer? I heard Officers are really not in the trenches and NCM are the door kickers - any help would be appreciated, and I sincerely apologize if I have asked any stupid questions.



You've mentioned the money thing a couple times already, no need to be repetitive.  Also, Tundra and Academi do not offer Infantry training, what I assume you meant was their various driver/shooting/Close Protection type courses offered.  As for Regular Force or Reserve, this is an easy one, do you want to be full time or part time(and do a civilian job for your career).  Yes, there is a difference between Reg Force and Reserve training.

Officers, are in the fight with the NCMs, although their time doing that is more limited compared to an NCM due to their career progression.

Also, if you are this motivated/gung ho to be a Soldier, serve, save lives, etc you missed out on quite the opportunity as we were involved in quite a long lasting conflict up until a couple years ago.


----------



## LivingTheDream

Hi Guys and Gals,

Just wondering if switching my DEO application to an NCM would be a good idea in my situation. Here is a brief summary:
- Trades of choice are Ms Eng (1st) and NWO(2nd)
- Applied in the summer of 2015;
- With delays and everything got my Security Clearance sorted out in around May 2017.
- Did my interview and medical in June-July 2017.
- On the Competition List, since Aug-Sept 2017.
- Heard nothing so far and getting tired of waiting to be honest.

I have no information on how competitive my application is, and my career counselor is impossible to get a hold off to ask a few questions in person and have a discussion. I was thinking that it shouldn't be such a big deal to talk to the person who is in charge of your file, but apparently it is.

Just solely based on the fact that I didn't get any offers over the past year, I am estimating that my application is not rated very highly for a DEO position, or I don't know how else to explain it. I guess I need some advice. I would like to hear a few opinions before I head down to the CFRC in person trying to get someone's attention there.

- Shall I continue waiting for a DEO position some more?
- Shall I lower my expectations and switch to an NCM (Mar. Tech.)? Personally, I don't mind learning the job from the bottom, and it is an in-demand occupation. This is what my original application was before I got talked by the career counselor to apply as a DEO.

My background is:
- Double Master's Degree:
  + Applied Physics and Math
  + Business Administration
- 8-9 years of experience in software, but closely related to shipbuilding. I don't write code. I talk to marine engineers and naval architects.
- Put in about 2,000 hrs/year in volunteering service with RCM-SAR.
- Also volunteer for Junior Achievement about 100hrs/year.
- Dual citizenship
- 36 yo

Thank you!


----------



## mariomike

Living the Dream said:
			
		

> Just wondering if switching my DEO application to an NCM would be a good idea in my situation.



You may find discussions like this of interest,

I need help choosing...Direct Entry Officer or NCM with a masters degree?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/101210.0
2 pages.

NCM vs. OFFICER?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/85111.0

NCM vs Officer enrollment  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/28327.0

Curious how everyone decided on their trade or Officer/NCM  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/101210.0
2 pages.

Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED] 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/171.0
25 pages.

etc...


----------



## OceanBonfire

Living the Dream said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> - Shall I lower my expectations ...
> 
> ...



You could go to an information session at your local reserve unit. You can be an officer in a reserve unit, literally work full time hours, and receive the same benefits as a regular force member.


----------



## LivingTheDream

Thank you, guys. Nice selection of discussions. I will drop by my CfRc tomorrow to check in.


----------



## dimsum

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> You could go to an information session at your local reserve unit. You can be an officer in a reserve unit, literally work full time hours, and receive the same benefits as a regular force member.



I would ask specifically at the unit about that.  

Unless you're working a Class C contract, and I'm not sure how many of those there are in the PRes world nowadays, you don't get paid the same.  If you're working Class B (still "full time") you're only getting paid 85%.  Also, Reservists do not get the same benefits as Reg Force folks.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would ask specifically at the unit about that.
> 
> ... Also, Reservists do not get the same benefits as Reg Force folks.



I asked them about that when I went to an information session at my local Reserve unit and they told me that it does for Class C. I was skeptical since it's the Reserves.


----------



## BrewsKampbell

Class C do receive more benefits but most likely your only going to see that contract if your deployed.


----------



## LivingTheDream

Hi Everyone,

Just a quick update. I walked into my CFRC today and talked to a recruiter there. A few things I learned today that might be of benefit to other applicants:
- A 1-year wait for DEO applicants is nothing unusual. It is not necessarily an indication of a weak application. It's just how timing works out for certain occupations. There is a lot of DEO applicants that have been waiting who are in a similar situation.
- The last DEO BMOQ for 2018 will start on September 10th.
- Most offers to go on September BMOQ will likely be made by the end of June 2018.
- If you are applying as a DEO and if you don't hear by the end of this June, chances are, you will not be in this September BMOQ.
- You will, likely, need to wait until 2019 or beyond it.

If anybody is interested, in the very specific case of my application, I was strongly advised not to switch to NCM until the end of June, but wait for 1 more month. If I am not selected as a DEO in 2018, CFRC will be very happy to process me as an NCM. Interview and medical will need to be redone, but that is not a big deal. So far, everything sounded fair to me.

Have a great weekend everyone!


----------

