# The utility of three military colleges, funded undergrad degrees; Officer trg & the need for a degre



## GAP

Military colleges to lose 1 in 3 professors
 RMC to be hardest hit, association says
 By Jeff Davis, Ottawa Citizen April 6, 2012
Article Link

Federal budget cuts targeting Canada's military colleges will eliminate up to one-third of the jobs now held by professors, says their professional association.

Jean-Marc Noel, a professor of physics and president of the Canadian Military Colleges Faculty Association, said Thursday he has been given a list of 68 faculty members that the Department of National Defence is looking to get rid of to cut costs.

That number represents more than a third of the approximately 185 faculty teaching at Canada's military colleges: Royal Military College in Kingston, the Canadian Forces College in Toronto and the Royal Military College campus in Saint-Jean, Que.

"It's going to seriously negatively affect the institution," he said. "My problem is if you're cutting to the bone, which is what they're doing now, they're jeopardizing their own reputations."

All the names are tenured professors who are locked into long-term union contracts with the colleges, Noel said. The list includes 35 full professors, 25 associate professors, six assistant professors and two senior lecturers who do not hold doctorates. Of the 68, Noel said, a majority teach at the Kingston campus, the largest of the three.

Strict union work rules mean that professors will not take on extra teaching burdens on any sustained basis, Noel said, so fewer profs means fewer classes. "They're saying we're going to have to do more with less," he said. "I hope they realize we'll be doing less with less because the work has not disappeared."

Neither the Royal Military College, the Department of National Defence nor Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office would confirm the plan.
end


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> "They're saying we're going to have to do more with less," he said. "I hope they realize we'll be doing less with less because the work has not disappeared."



 :crybaby:

I didn't realize that RMC was different than the rest of the CF.

My bad.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Genuine question for those in the know at RMC, but could that number of profs have been required over he past 15 years to get us to current state of a fully degreed officer corps?


----------



## McG

GAP said:
			
		

> That number represents more than a third of the approximately 185 faculty teaching at Canada's military colleges: Royal Military College in Kingston, the Canadian Forces College in Toronto and the Royal Military College campus in Saint-Jean, Que.


How much of that pain could be mitigated if all three colleges shared a common campus and existed as a single university?


----------



## dapaterson

Note that "affected" does not mean "Terminated".  My understanding is that if there are, say, five associate basketweaving professors, and the department is to be reduced to four, then all five current associate professors are considered "affected" as one will be terminated.  Thus, until it's decided who is terminated all five are considered affected.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> How much of that pain could be mitigated if all three colleges shared a common campus and existed as a single university?



Perhaps we've come to a point where there is no requirement for RMC to have undergraduate programs.  All ROTP could be done through civie U's, without the overhead of the campus, and RMC could focus on post-grad, military related programs.  Aside from the arguments of esprit-de-corps and experience, what is really lost for someone getting a BA-English at U of Ottawa vice RMC?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps we've come to a point where there is no requirement for RMC to have undergraduate programs.  All ROTP could be done through civie U's, without the overhead of the campus, and RMC could focus on post-grad, military related programs.  Aside from the arguments of esprit-de-corps and experience, what is really lost for someone getting a BA-English at U of Ottawa vice RMC?



What? No RingKnockers? Blasphemy! ;D


----------



## Infanteer

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps we've come to a point where there is no requirement for RMC to have undergraduate programs.  All ROTP could be done through civie U's, without the overhead of the campus, and RMC could focus on post-grad, military related programs.  Aside from the arguments of esprit-de-corps and experience, what is really lost for someone getting a BA-English at U of Ottawa vice RMC?



Or better yet, turn RMC into a Sandhurst 1-year program for all Officer entry plans.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

recceguy said:
			
		

> What? No RingKnockers? Blasphemy! ;D



I suspect that is why we'll never see the end of RMC.  Though, as infanteer said, if we got rid of the Undergrad part of RMC it would also eliminate the wasted time in the training system, as there would be less time between 1.1 and 1.2 training for officers waiting for their RMC counterparts.  Someone should not be almost half way to a CD before they're trained..... (4-5 years undergrad)


----------



## aesop081

Or maybe *gasp* re-evaluate the "degrees for all" requirement ?

Re-start the Officer Candidate Training Plan ?


----------



## Old Sweat

We were having this frigging debate when I was an officer cadet and that was before most of you were even a gleam in you old man's eye.  :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Or maybe *gasp* re-evaluate the "degrees for all" requirement ?
> 
> Re-start the Officer Candidate Training Plan ?



Now that's blasphemy.

Being able to sit and memorize information for 4 years and a gain a piece of paper does not a leader make.


----------



## Drag

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Now that's blasphemy.
> 
> Being able to sit and memorize information for 4 years and a gain a piece of paper does not a leader make.



No a BA/BSc/ BEng, etc does not make one a better leader at the tactical level, but officer ranks do not end at Maj and responsibilities do not end at OC...  It is at the staff/HQ positions that the value of both bachelor and advanced degrees really comes out.  This is where tactical excellence takes a back seat to being able to think at the operational/strategic level.  The most valuable thing I got out of my degree (which is not very applicable to my current field of employment) is how to learn and how to logically reason my way though a problem and effectively articulate it in writing.

In my last job I had 2 peers and superior without degrees (most that came up from the ranks), and while their military knowledge was/is far superior to mine the lack of formal education impacted their ability to excel in a job where we dealt with staff at multiple L1s, OGDs, MND's and DM's staff.  Even though the most jr guy there (TI/rank) the section head heavily depended on me for higher end staff work (long term planning, staffing MND submissions/ remits, providing feedback to central staff efforts) and had me QC the staff work of the others before it was allowed to leave the section.

There is a reason the CF went to a all degree officer corps and we will not be going back any time soon.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> There is a reason the CF went to a all degree officer corps and we will not be going back any time soon.



Fallout from the Somalia inquiry and nothing more.


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Fallout from the Somalia inquiry and nothing more.



Or the realization that the LCol Section Head/ Director or the Maj PD/PM/ Senior Analyst need to be just as well educated as their counterparts at TBS/PWGSC/DFAIT/ Public Safety/ CSEC in order to be able to operate on the same level with them and not have them run circles around us at our detriment.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> Or the realization that the LCol Section Head/ Director or the Maj PD/PM/ Senior Analyst need to be just as well educated as their counterparts at TBS/PWGSC/DFAIT/ Public Safety/ CSEC in order to be able to operate on the same level with them and not have them run circles around us at our detriment.



So, does this make it necessary for every single CF officer to spend 4 years at university ?

Would a different program (1-2 years), more targeted be a better option ?

An infantry officer with a english literature degree is no more prepared to be a project director than an infantry officer with no degree. Now imagine if we replaced 4 years of RMC at entry to the CF with a 1 year "project management" course when a guy gets to Maj and is identified for such a position.


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So, does this make it necessary for every single CF officer to spend 4 years at university ?
> 
> Would a different program (1-2 years), more targeted be a better option ?



If you are only planning to employ an officer at the tactical level up to the rank of Maj, a degree is not necessary, however can we afford to maintain a separate stream of officers with the size of our force... I submit we do not, that is why having the was majority of the officer corps with degrees makes sense.


----------



## J_dog

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Or better yet, turn RMC into a Sandhurst 1-year program for all Officer entry plans.



I completely agree, it would be best if all officers attended Civi U first then attend a 1 yr Officer "finishing" program like is done in the UK; Sandhurst for the Army, Dartmouth for the Royal Navy, Cranwell for the RAF. 
(although depending on the entry plan some UK Officers to not have that initial degree).

Majority of Civi Uni's offer more courses, more degrees and far better varsity sports programs then RMC does and would give the future Officer a better background to start with.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> An infantry officer with a english literature degree is no more prepared to be a project director than an infantry officer with no degree. Now imagine if we replaced 4 years of RMC at entry to the CF with a 1 year "project management" course when a guy gets to Maj and is identified for such a position.



I disagree, the Inf O with an English degree still has much more developed analytical/critical thinking skills then without the degree, having been a PD, that is one of the most aspects of the job.  The PM course would give you to tools and the processes/best practices to be more effective in the job but is not structured to give one critical thinking skills.  A mbr with a PM course without the psot secondary background could efficiently execute the mechanics of project management but would not be able to apply the same level of mental rigor that someone with a degree could.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> I disagree, the Inf O with an English degree still has much more developed analytical/critical thinking skills then without the degree, having been a PD, that is one of the most aspects of the job.



Fair enough. I simply put much less faith into a degree that you i guess. I know too many people with degrees who have the analytical/critical skills that would only rival a 5-year old.

Thanks for you perspective.


----------



## Cui

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I simply put much less faith into a degree that you i guess. I know too many people with degrees who have the analytical/critical skills that would only rival a 5-year old.
> 
> Thanks for you perspective.



Despite what one might see on television and in movies, not all universities are a cesspool of alcohol and sex. A majority of us university students are very hard working and diligent in our studies.

Like everything else, the public tend to associate groups of people with the few minorities that have distinguished themselves by less than glamorous means.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

D3 said:
			
		

> I disagree, the Inf O with an English degree still has much more developed analytical/critical thinking skills then without the degree, having been a PD, that is one of the most aspects of the job.  The PM course would give you to tools and the processes/best practices to be more effective in the job but is not structured to give one critical thinking skills.  A mbr with a PM course without the psot secondary background could efficiently execute the mechanics of project management but would not be able to apply the same level of mental rigor that someone with a degree could.




If degrees are so important than how is it the British Army has survived so long NOT requiring degrees of it's officer applicants?


----------



## Cui

This whole thread reminds me of these comics:

http://terminallance.com/2010/06/25/terminal-lance-46-educated-leadership/

http://pvtmurphy.com/strips/full/111-Quick-mind.jpg


----------



## aesop081

Cui said:
			
		

> Despite what one might see on television and in movies,



Despite what you might think, i am not basing my opinion on what i have seen on TV and in movies.


----------



## ballz

D3 said:
			
		

> I disagree, the Inf O with an English degree still has much more developed analytical/critical thinking skills then without the degree, having been a PD, that is one of the most aspects of the job.  The PM course would give you to tools and the processes/best practices to be more effective in the job but is not structured to give one critical thinking skills.  A mbr with a PM course without the psot secondary background could efficiently execute the mechanics of project management but would not be able to apply the same level of mental rigor that someone with a degree could.



Those are two huge, wide-sweeping blanket statements. The amount of weight you put in a university degree is frightening.

I'm done my degree in 11 days, and four years later the product coming out of my graduating class is pretty much the same as they were when they came in, just more in debt and for the most part more mature after ageing 4-5 years. There are enough threads talking about the standards and process of post-secondary education that show it's lost it's knack for forcing people to think harder. There is little to no "critical analysis" required to obtain a Bachelor's degree any more. For four years just show up for class, go home and memorize the examples and definitions, and then regurgitate it. As long as you keep paying tuition, you will get the degree. My grade 12 math class was harder than any course I've done in university, including "higher level" mathematics courses.

I have said this before about the instructors I've had so far in the CF, most of whom did not have a degree, and at least one only had grade 10. They were way sharper and more able to "critically analyse" something than any of my university peers or profs. The reason? Probably because they made it to where they were based on merit, not on credentialism. I would hire any of them as a manager before 98% of the people in my business class.



			
				Cui said:
			
		

> A majority of us university students are very hard working and diligent in our studies.



Debatable, depends mostly on their program. In my experience, most people really just remain hard-working "enough," but they are under the impression that they are near their limit because they haven't actually experienced any real hardship or been pushed near their limit before. This is why if you ask almost any student, they think they are in the hardest and most time-consuming program, doing the hardest classes, with the most assignments, and the worst profs. Most of them still manage to drink two nights a week, so it's not that time-consuming.


----------



## Drag

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> If degrees are so important than how is it the British Army has survived so long NOT requiring degrees of it's officer applicants?



I am by no means an expert on the British Army and most of my knowledge comes from a crse I did with a few Royal Sigs officers and discussions with them.  However, I was under the impression that 80-90% of pers attending Sandhurst do have degrees (comparable to the CF when you take into account CFR, OCTP, COTP).  As well, I would be curious how far one can advance in the British Army without a degree, since the graduates of their Tech Staff College (senior Capts) get Masters Degrees.

As I said before, jobs at the tactical level, a degree is not required however once you more from the tactical level they become essential.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

D3 said:
			
		

> I am by no means an expert on the British Army and most of my knowledge comes from a crse I did with a few Royal Sigs officers and discussions with them.  However, I was under the impression that 80-90% of pers attending Sandhurst do have degrees (comparable to the CF when you take into account CFR, OCTP, COTP).  As well, I would be curious how far one can advance in the British Army without a degree, since the graduates of their Tech Staff College (senior Capts) get Masters Degrees.
> 
> As I said before, jobs at the tactical level, a degree is not required however once you more from the tactical level they become essential.


I won't get into a long, winding discussion on the merits\ touchstones\ etc for, or against.

No they do not. You're opinion only.

What I will say is D3, you're rather full of yourself as far as the capabilities of others that haven't reached your exalted level.

History is rife with 'book learners and degree holders' that were thrust into minor stress situations and balled it up completely because the parameters of that situation matched nothing that their flowcharts, project management models and professor's hypotheticals matched.

Military situations have also been turned by that simple farm boy using god given logic, guts and determination.

Suck back and reload a bit. Four years of University doesn't make you some sort of mental whiz.

I dealt with the highest level DFAIT person in Afghanistan, on a regular basis, where she wouldn't even speak to a ringknocker. Guess what, got more accomplished than the uni types did. No degree.

We're not all stupid for not attending your alma mater, or it's equivalent.


----------



## Drag

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm done my degree in 11 days, and four years later the product coming out of my graduating class is pretty much the same as they were when they came in, just more in debt and for the most part more mature after ageing 4-5 years. There are enough threads talking about the standards and process of post-secondary education that show it's lost it's knack for forcing people to think harder. There is little to no "critical analysis" required to obtain a Bachelor's degree any more. For four years just show up for class, go home and memorize the examples and definitions, and then regurgitate it. As long as you keep paying tuition, you will get the degree. My grade 12 math class was harder than any course I've done in university, including "higher level" mathematics courses.
> 
> I have said this before about the instructors I've had so far in the CF, most of whom did not have a degree, and at least one only had grade 10. They were way sharper and more able to "critically analyse" something than any of my university peers or profs. The reason? Probably because they made it to where they were based on merit, not on credentialism. I would hire any of them as a manager before 98% of the people in my business class.
> 
> Debatable, depends mostly on their program. In my experience, most people really just remain hard-working "enough," but they are under the impression that they are near their limit because they haven't actually experienced any real hardship or been pushed near their limit before. This is why if you ask almost any student, they think they are in the hardest and most time-consuming program, doing the hardest classes, with the most assignments, and the worst profs. Most of them still manage to drink two nights a week, so it's not that time-consuming.



I would wait until I got some actual TI and actual experience in the CF before making some of the statements you've made as you have not had the chance of actually working with Sr NCOs long enough to know what skill sets you can expect an average Sgt/WO/MWO to have.  I am not trying to take anything away from your phase training instructors who are all extremely competent professionals *at what they do*.  

However, asking them run a long term business plan for a base (a jr Fin O Capt's job) is beyond their skill sets and expertise, seeing your profile however your classmates would be better suited for it.  Likewise, asking someone who has not done post secondary education to produce a staff paper for the Bde/Base/Wing Comd on a complex issue will not give you the same quality of work that someone with a post secondary education would produce.  Going to university you have gained skill sets that you may now take for granted but I am sure you will realize their importance as you actually start your career in the CF.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Here's my take as one of the non-degreed officers.  The majority of officers in the CF outside those with specific engineering requirements are holders of liberal arts degrees of one form or another. All this simply means is they are able to learn things. Not prepare them to be officers burdened with the responsibility of command, in fact I would submit that only experience and formal military training can prepare an officer to shoulder that burden.

Where a degree comes in handy is in the hallowed halls of the department (separate from the CF) where things of that nature seem to matter. On the CF side of the house we train our strategic leaders in military studies in Toronto (although arguably could be combined into one facility) where the officer has the option to turn it into a masters of war studies if they choose.  More operationally focussed to lead the institution than say an MBA. (although great for LOG Offrs) 

But to make a blanket statement than an English major possesses critical analysis skills simply because they have a degree is insulting to those of us who manage to create operational and strategic staff work without a degree.  In fact not even tactical staff work is created in a bubble but more a product of many combat multipliers.


----------



## blacktriangle

I don't think the tax payer should be footing the bill for a degree as a part of Officer training. I don't think we need RMC either. Logical places to make cuts, IMO. 

As for needing a degree...yes and no. I think some degrees are worthwhile, in some occupations. 

I don't have a completed degree but I could hit the ground running today and be a competent officer with the proper training and mentoring.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Let me try make this a little clearer.


D3, your arse is sucking wind.

Do NOT try equate a degree to intelligence. You'll lose every time.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> I would wait until I got some actual TI



I have plenty so i hope it is OK if i comment further.




> Likewise, asking someone who has not done post secondary education to produce a staff paper for the Bde/Base/Wing Comd on a complex issue will not give you the same quality of work that someone with a post secondary education would produce.



I have had many commissioned supervisors who could not compose a comprehensible email. My own work over the last few months, as a lowly WO, has produced documents that have gone at those levels and above. I wonder how i managed.

There are benefits to having a university education. I simply contend that the blanket system we currently use is unnecessary.


----------



## Drag

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let me try make this a little clearer.
> 
> 
> D3, your arse is sucking wind.
> 
> Do NOT try equate a degree to intelligence. You'll lose every time.



I never said that having a degree is an indicator of superior intelligence (some of the most intelligent people I know have a high school education or less), having a degree, like any sort of other training, gives you certain skill sets which are much more difficult (even with natural aptitude) to develop without a post secondary education.  And those skill sets need to be developed for officers to be able to effectively operate beyond the tactical level.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> .  And those skill sets need to be developed for officers to be able to effectively operate beyond the tactical level.



So what you are saying is that one cannot develop those skills in between the time they join and the time where they are placed in one of those positions ? They cannot do it in any other way than attending university and obtaining an undergraduate degree ?

Quite a few officers who work those levels who do not have degrees. I'm sure they developed the necessary skills somewhere. Then the CF gave them the requisite training.

One does not go from RMC straight to being a project manager in Ottawa.



> And those skill sets need to be developed for officers to be able to effectively operate beyond the tactical level.



I personally know several "degree-less" NCMs who work at those levels/jobs. I'm quite sure they operate effectively.


----------



## quadrapiper

D3 said:
			
		

> I never said that having a degree is an indicator of superior intelligence (some of the most intelligent people I know have a high school education or less), having a degree, like any sort of other training, gives you certain skill sets which are much more difficult (even with natural aptitude) to develop without a post secondary education.  And those skill sets need to be developed for officers to be able to effectively operate beyond the tactical level.


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there's some benefit to certain of the skills sometimes associated with getting a bachelor's.

Is there a cheaper, more efficient way for the CF to equip new officers with those skills, than running them through a degree program? Without a doubt. 

Perhaps a post-St Jean course, run at Kingston, for the initial "stuff," and an expansion of the OPME program, leading into whatever's on offer in Toronto?

D3 - what "above the tactical level" interactions are you talking about? "Me-wall" competitions with the Civil Service?


----------



## ballz

D3 said:
			
		

> I would wait until I got some actual TI and actual experience in the CF before making some of the statements you've made as you have not had the chance of actually working with Sr NCOs long enough to know what skill sets you can expect an average Sgt/WO/MWO to have.  I am not trying to take anything away from your phase training instructors who are all extremely competent professionals *at what they do*.
> 
> However, asking them run a long term business plan for a base (a jr Fin O Capt's job) is beyond their skill sets and expertise, seeing your profile however your classmates would be better suited for it.  Likewise, asking someone who has not done post secondary education to produce a staff paper for the Bde/Base/Wing Comd on a complex issue will not give you the same quality of work that someone with a post secondary education would produce.  Going to university you have gained skill sets that you may now take for granted but I am sure you will realize their importance as you actually start your career in the CF.



You're telling me to wait until I have TI before making that statement, but you are judging my entire graduating business class not having met any of them, yet I've known them for 4 years. That's a bit counter-intuitive don't you think?

My classmates would not be better suited to run a long term business plan for a base. Some of them haven't even learned the difference between profit and revenue yet, and I don't think they will in the next 11 days. I specified that I was talking about the instructors I have had for a reason, because I was talking about them, not "an average SNCO" (I have no idea whether they were below or above average, as you mentioned, not enough TI). I was comparing two groups of people that I actually have experience dealing with.

I wouldn't hire some of my peers to run for coffee, I would hire all my past instructors to do business/management type things in various industries because they have proven based on merit that they are competent leaders and can be trusted to get the job done. It wouldn't matter whether it was the combat arms, or if I owned an autobody shop, a kitchen, or a newspaper. The specifics are rather irrelevant, the business students have no experience/knowledge of any of those things either, and they sure didn't learn how to be leaders or managers from their 4 years at MUN, nor any "managerial skills." Some of them learned some accounting (like I said, there are still some that don't know the difference between profit and revenue), about half of them failed finance and most of them just managed to crawl across the finish line.



			
				D3 said:
			
		

> Going to university you have gained skill sets that you may now take for granted but I am sure you will realize their importance as you actually start your career in the CF.



I can only hope that's true. The profs that know me well enough and have had these discussions with me have even admitted that four years doing a business degree was a complete waste of my time, even the one that tried to argue I am a more "enlightened mind" now. I used logic/problem solving skills to solve anything they've thrown at me, even the "theory" stuff that you're apparently not supposed to be able to know without studying it, but they never actually challenged that and enhanced it. It's a long-winded detour to get into, but I've taken it before.

I'll be the first to admit, I certainly wasn't ready to be an officer in the CF when I was 18, I wasn't even close to mature enough (some will argue I'm still not, and hey, I haven't made it through Phase training yet so they might be right ), but there were much more productive things the CF could have had me doing for 4 years. Even if they got rid of the degree requirement and just said "you have to be 23 to join as an officer" I probably would have spent four years marking time as a civilian and gained more valuable experiences than I did at university, such as travelling, real work experience (I would have most likely done a trade or something) with real people and real bosses, etc.


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is that one cannot develop those skills in between the time they join and the time where they are placed in one of those positions ? They cannot do it in any other way than attending university and obtaining an undergraduate degree ?
> 
> Quite a few officers who work those levels who do not have degrees. I'm sure they developed the necessary skills somewhere. Then the CF gave them the requisite training.
> 
> One does not go from RMC straight to being a project manager in Ottawa.



Are there alternative ways to develop those skill sets, sure there are. It is the old argument of whether to load the training up front or deliver it "just in time."  Could you hold off post secondary education until the mbr needs it (Sr Capt, Jr Maj)?  You could but it would be much less cost effective to pay the mbr as a Capt/Maj to get a degree or equivalent training than as an ROTP OCdt  or expect them to apply with degrees (DEOs).  For the CF to establish a military specific training separate from the existing university/MilCol stem would be a waste of limited resources imo.  Wrt civilian institutions, the respective provincial governments already foot 50-80% of the tuition bill through subsidies to the universities.


----------



## McG

D3 said:
			
		

> I am by no means an expert on the British Army and most of my knowledge comes from a crse I did with a few Royal Sigs officers and discussions with them.  However, I was under the impression that 80-90% of pers attending Sandhurst do have degrees (comparable to the CF when you take into account CFR, OCTP, COTP).  As well, I would be curious how far one can advance in the British Army without a degree, since the graduates of their Tech Staff College (senior Capts) get Masters Degrees.


The UK educational system is also quite different.  In North America, a master's degree is a post graduate degree requiring enrollees to have first attained a bachelor's degree.  In thee UK, both bachelor's degrees and Master's degrees exist as distinct undergraduate programmes.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is that one cannot develop those skills in between the time they join and the time where they are placed in one of those positions ?


Next to all the other required training & education, where would it fit in if it was done later? Would we give all Captains 3-4 years on ATL to get an undergraduate degree?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps we've come to a point where there is no requirement for RMC to have undergraduate programs.  All ROTP could be done through civie U's, without the overhead of the campus, and RMC could focus on post-grad, military related programs.


I see two other options.  We could do away with ROTP and only hire DEOs.  

Alternately, as the "owner" of RMC, we could introduce more control over the programmes in order to deliver a better product along tighter timelines.  There are legitimate complaints that not all degrees are equal, that individuals can slide through without attaining the critical thinking skills necessary, and that undergraduate education standards are slipping across the country.  Why not use RMC to deliver a professional degree that addresses these concerns in a three year programme?  Currently, BMASc is offered exclusively as a distance learn programme - it should be the primary degree for any ROTP student not required by occupation to take specific technical degree (eg. BEng).


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have plenty so i hope it is OK if i comment further.
> 
> 
> I have had many commissioned supervisors who could not compose a comprehensible email. My own work over the last few months, as a lowly WO, has produced documents that have gone at those levels and above. I wonder how i managed.
> 
> There are benefits to having a university education. I simply contend that the blanket system we currently use is unnecessary.


I've seen examples of both (offrs that could not write coherent minutes of a meeting) as well I know an ex CWO who is a better writer in both official languages then most Capts and Majs, however, generally my experience has been that mbrs with degrees produce better staff work.


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> Would we give all Captains 3-4 years on ATL to get an undergraduate degree?



Quite clearly, i would not as i don't believe that an undergraduate degree is a requirement for all officers.

We already manage to put Captains on ATL for year-long courses required for various technical and project jobs, so the career framework to do ATL education already exists.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I don't think the tax payer should be footing the bill for a degree as a part of Officer training. I don't think we need RMC either. Logical places to make cuts, IMO.
> 
> As for needing a degree...yes and no. I think some degrees are worthwhile, in some occupations.
> 
> I don't have a completed degree but I could hit the ground running today and be a competent officer with the proper training and mentoring.



I think that the tax payer should foot the bill for SOME degree programs, namely those specific ones in need, be it in the CF or in the civy world.  For the CF, my opinion is that a major factor in the offering of a degree is to attract persons to the CF who would otherwise go to university and into the civie world.  That said, there is a real requirement for professionals in the CF in engineering and medical trades, as well as a slew of other specialized trades.  Those pers should have their degrees paid for, since it benefits the CF, and larger society as a whole.  In civie world, Canada is currently extremely short in trades persons, while pumping out record levels of BA types.  Why not pay for trades training and lure people from the BA world to fill our needs? 

In short- I agree with paying for degrees if it benefits the larger society.  If you want a philosophy degree or drama degree, than you're footing the bill.

I do like the idea of re-rolling RMC into a Sandhurst type of institution.  Would save on training time lost due to conflicting schedules (DEO vs RMC), and would allow for people to be exposed to different ideologies and social situations than  they do at RMC.


----------



## Drag

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> D3 - what "above the tactical level" interactions are you talking about? "Me-wall" competitions with the Civil Service?



How about writing a business case for the MND outlining why he should spend $50M in capital funding with accurately forecasting the 2nd and 3rd order effects... Ability "speak the same language" with the public service while representing DND...


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We already manage to put Captains on ATL for year-long courses required for various technical and project jobs, so the career framework to do ATL education already exists.


Most of the existing year long ATL paths for captains have the undergraduate degree as a prerequisit.  While the career framework exists to do ATL, I don't think we should set ourselves on a path that requires a universal ATL path at the rank of Capt.


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't think we should set ourselves on a path that requires a universal ATL path at the rank of Capt.



I never said it needed to be universal.

Take the Aerospace Systems Course (ASC) for example. It is not offered to all RCAF Captains. Those sent on the course go ATL for one year and have been designated to fill certain positions prior to attending the course. Those who are not intended for technical/project work do not attend the course. The course is now open to NCMs as well so the undergrad degree requirement is not that much of an issue there.

I would rather think that the personal attributes required of those jobs is acquired through the member's experience, enhanced by the training to a much more feective level than that of university and a degree in basket-weaving.


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I never said it needed to be universal.


Then you are not answering the question of where would we fit the education requirements if the undergraduate degree were removed from the front end of an officers career.  The current ATL paths (such as ASC or LFTSP) do not address that - rather, they expect that educational requirement has already been met.  So, if the if the undergraduate degree is removed from the front end of an officers career, where do you fit that education into the career path?

We probably don't need the current four year honours type programme, but we need something and that something is far less expensive if it is done prior to enrollment or at the OCdt level.


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> rather, they expect that educational requirement has already been met.



Since the RCAF has seen fit to open the ASC to its NCMs, i would think it is fair to say that it has been accepted that the requirements can be met through the member's experience.



> that something is far less expensive if it is done prior to enrollment or at the OCdt level.



It would be even far less expensive if it was directed at the people who need it rather than towards everyone "just in case".

If one's MOS requires a specific degree type ( engineers for example) to do their jobs at the entry-level, then by all means, send them to RMC on the front-end. Other MOS who do not have specific degree requirements for one to do his initial jobs ca, IMHO, live with more specific, targeted training/education later on.


----------



## Drag

MCG said:
			
		

> Then you are not answering the question of where would we fit the education requirements if the undergraduate degree were removed from the front end of an officers career.  The current ATL paths (such as ASC or LFTSP) do not address that - rather, they expect that educational requirement has already been met.  So, if the if the undergraduate degree is removed from the front end of an officers career, where do you fit that education into the career path?
> 
> We probably don't need the current four year honours type programme, but we need something and that something is far less expensive if it is done prior to enrollment or at the OCdt level.



+1 Unless we start recruiting 18-19 year olds  as officers pushing the training back later in the mbr's career would serve to cut 3-4 years of "usefullness" the organization can get out of the mbr.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> +1 Unless we start recruiting 18-19 year olds  as officers



We once did.


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Since the RCAF has seen fit to open the ASC to its NCMs, i would think it is fair to say that it has been accepted that the requirements can be met through the member's experience.


The Army has done the same with the LFTSP - WO & MWO follow the same thing as ATWO, but the expectations and standards are different.  The jobs after are also different.  I would not suggest this demonstrates a jr officer will have met career educational requirements simply through experience.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It would be even far less expensive if it was directed at the people ho need it rather than towards everyone "just in case".


I know a major who observed that what he pays in annual income tax could hire an OCdt for a year.  I would not assume it is cheaper to send sr officers for just-in-time education.  But, if we want to assume it is cheaper, where do you put it in the career stream?  Do you propose JCSP be extended to include an undergraduate master's degree akin to the UK model?



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> D3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Unless we start recruiting 18-19 year olds as officers
> 
> 
> 
> We once did.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting we should do this again?


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you propose JCSP be extended to include an undergraduate master's degree akin to the UK model?



I am neither familiar enough with JCSP or the UK model to make a determination. It does, however, sound worth exploring.



> Are you suggesting we should do this again?



Why not ? Was there something inherently wrong with OCTP that i am missing ?

Hell, look at the Pilot MOS. Its takes long enough as it is to train one to OFP, imagine if we shaved off 4 years of university as we once did with OCTP.


----------



## vonGarvin

D3 said:
			
		

> I disagree, the Inf O with an English degree still has much more developed analytical/critical thinking skills then without the degree, having been a PD, that is one of the most aspects of the job.


Get a philosophy degree, and then talk to me about ciricial thinking.  A language degree is about interpreting poems.  So, intepret this:


Go fuck yourself.


Amen



(me: BA (Hons) [insert language here]/philosophy)


----------



## Drag

MCG said:
			
		

> I know a major who observed that what he pays in annual income tax could hire an OCdt for a year. ?



As a first year ROTP OCdt, my salary was just over one fifth of what it is now as a Capt IPC 3.  For a year of salary at my current pay level the CF can get over 3 years of salary+tuition+ books at an accredited civilian institutions.  As well, there would be significant additional costs to establish and manage any "just in time" training.

Now considering that most officers in the CF does eventually get posted out of a tactical billet and would need some sort of ATL type training, the current way of doing things is one of the more economical.


----------



## aesop081

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Go frig yourself.
> 
> 
> Amen



It does not rhyme. You would know that if you had an English degree.


----------



## vonGarvin

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It does not rhyme. You would know that if you had an English degree.




True


But, of course, I have a degree in German, so not only do I lack rhyming, but also a sense of NOT invading Poland...


----------



## dapaterson

D3 said:
			
		

> How about writing a business case for the MND outlining why he should spend $50M in capital funding with accurately forecasting the 2nd and 3rd order effects... Ability "speak the same language" with the public service while representing DND...



Hmm... MND doesn't read those documents, you know.  His staff review and synthesize and make recommendations; some MNDs read only the first para of the BN that summarizes the executive summary.  And within DND, $50M isn't that impressive - that may well be within the non-strat allocation of an ECS.

You're not providing a compelling case for a degreed officer corps.  Capital submissions, whether to the MND or to TB, are not an argument.  Indeed, much of that work should be done by civilians; that the Sig and Log branches are primarily in the NCR suggests a lack of operational focus on their part, and an excessive desire to fight bureaucratic battles that are, frankly, as waste of the finite number of full-time military personnel permitted to the CF.  A cull of the Log and Sigs branches in the NCR is long, long overdue, as many of the positions they fill would be more appropriately and more economically filled by public servants.

Is there a need for officers who can think?  Yes.  Is a degreed officer corps the only way to get it?  No.  Are there other models (ie short service engagements of 7-9 years, followed by release, with folks topping out at Capt) that may work as well?  Yes.

Is there a risk of intellectual monoculture when we push our ROTP through a single small, provincial and parochial school in Kingston?  Yes.  Is there value in having our officers get a degree mill Masters from the CF College in Toronto?  No.  Instead, we should send some (fewer than we do now) out to other schools to broaden horizons and social networks.

The current model is flawed; the institutional hunkering down to protect the current structure is unseemly; and the cost is not worth the end product.  In my opinion.


----------



## cavalryman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> True
> 
> 
> But, of course, I have a degree in German, so not only do I lack rhyming ;D, but also a sense of NOT invading Poland...



Dann hast du nicht aufgepasst.  Polnischer Einzug 101 ist die Basis.  Dann kommt Pariser Einzug 201.
;D


----------



## vonGarvin

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Dann hast du nicht aufgepasst.  Polnischer Einzug 101 ist die Basis.  Dann kommt Pariser Einzug 201.
> ;D


Jetzt darf ich durch gehen?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

D3 said:
			
		

> As a first year ROTP OCdt, my salary was just over one fifth of what it is now as a Capt IPC 3.  For a year of salary at my current pay level the CF can get over 3 years of salary+tuition+ books at an accredited civilian institutions.  As well, there would be significant additional costs to establish and manage any "just in time" training.
> 
> Now considering that most officers in the CF does eventually get posted out of a tactical billet and would need some sort of ATL type training, the current way of doing things is one of the more economical.



You still seriously contend that in order to be a critical thinker and\ or posit a business plan to the CDS, or such, requires a degree?

That, to me anyway, shows you didn't learn much in your four years. Not much of consequence anyway. Certainly not enough to put you anywhere above many of the WOs & Snr NCOs I have known throughout my long career.

I'll reiterate. Your arse is a star. The only thing you have seemed to have learned is pompasity and an outward disdain or scorn for anyone that hasn't wasted four years of their life in one of your sanctified halls of learning where a degree is a degree is a degree. No matter which one it is.


----------



## mba2011

I am currently a ROTP OCdt at a civilian university. IN MY OPINION, there are pros and cons to the program (both RMC/CMR and Civi U). 

The pros include giving us experiences from both sides of things, the military and the civilian. We receive  our training during the summers and also OJE during the summer between university and the course we are taking in the summer. This gives us some practical military experience in addition to the training we do in the summer. When we are at school, we are still bound by The NDA/QR&O/CSD and all other regulations/orders. We are RegForce military members who's job it is to go to school. That said, at university, we still get similar life experiences as other students in regards to social interactions, disputes with professors etc. These experiences gives us different "life Lessons" but also gives us experiences with the military at the same time. 

One of the cons is the cost of the program. The CF pays our tuition, books and other mandatory fees. As well, salary and all the CF benefits. However, the program enables the CF to cultivate skilled officers and acquire individuals who have a variety of different skills, degrees and experiences that help enhance the CF (not to say that others don't enhance the CF, many do more so than ROTP OCdts, but we do have some value to the CF). 

The point I am getting at is that whilst it is an expensive program, it gives the CF officers who are different then DEO officers. When we are commissioned and posted, we have had 2-4 years in the Forces, maybe not in our eventual roles in our trades but in the administrative system, several months of OJE and the valuable lesson of having to abide by all the CF Laws in the civilian world. Even though getting rid of the program would save the CF money, replacing it with a "finishing School" for officers (as suggested earlier in the thread) wouldn't necessarily be as effective. ROTP is expensive but in the long run it gives the CF a different kind of officer then DEO which does help to enhance CF as a whole.

On another note, a degree doesn't guarantee you skills like critical thinking. There are classmates of mine who I wouldn't trust to manage a lemonade stand let alone an infantry platoon or MP section. That said, requiring officers to have degrees is not a bad thing. It would make sense for those Senior NCO's being commissioned from the ranks to have this requirement waved but required DEO's to have one.  

Feel free to disagree, it is just my opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Get a philosophy degree, and then talk to me about ciricial thinking.  A language degree is about interpreting poems.  So, intepret this:
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Amen
> (me: BA (Hons) [insert language here]/philosophy)



CONSIDER THIS A FREEBEE.
Treading on thin ice my friend.
Bruce
army.ca Staff

and Grade 9 dropout doing alright.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

armouredmike said:
			
		

> I am currently a ROTP OCdt at a civilian university. IN MY OPINION, there are pros and cons to the program (both RMC/CMR and Civi U).
> 
> The pros include giving us experiences from both sides of things, the military and the civilian. We receive  our training during the summers and also OJE during the summer between university and the course we are taking in the summer. This gives us some practical military experience in addition to the training we do in the summer. When we are at school, we are still bound by The NDA/QR&O/CSD and all other regulations/orders. We are RegForce military members who's job it is to go to school. That said, at university, we still get similar life experiences as other students in regards to social interactions, disputes with professors etc. These experiences gives us different "life Lessons" but also gives us experiences with the military at the same time.
> 
> One of the cons is the cost of the program. The CF pays our tuition, books and other mandatory fees. As well, salary and all the CF benefits. However, the program enables the CF to cultivate skilled officers and acquire individuals who have a variety of different skills, degrees and experiences that help enhance the CF (not to say that others don't enhance the CF, many do more so than ROTP OCdts, but we do have some value to the CF).
> 
> The point I am getting at is that whilst it is an expensive program, it gives the CF officers who are different then DEO officers. When we are commissioned and posted, we have had 2-4 years in the Forces, maybe not in our eventual roles in our trades but in the administrative system, several months of OJE and the valuable lesson of having to abide by all the CF Laws in the civilian world. Even though getting rid of the program would save the CF money, replacing it with a "finishing School" for officers (as suggested earlier in the thread) wouldn't necessarily be as effective. ROTP is expensive but in the long run it gives the CF a different kind of officer then DEO which does help to enhance CF as a whole.
> 
> On another note, a degree doesn't guarantee you skills like critical thinking. There are classmates of mine who I wouldn't trust to manage a lemonade stand let alone an infantry platoon or MP section. That said, requiring officers to have degrees is not a bad thing. It would make sense for those Senior NCO's being commissioned from the ranks to have this requirement waved but required DEO's to have one.
> 
> Feel free to disagree, it is just my opinion.



There are also an awful lot of those fine, intelligent young officers, that spend all that time in University, getting those degrees that hit Phase training and thunder in so bad that they are done before they start. Just not smart enough to think tactically, work under stress or command troops, no matter what their degree says. I suppose though that some get plucked from that horrid fate, into some administrative position, to where somewhere down the road, as a Major or LCol, writing plans for the CDS (because they have a degree) they will be able to determine what the troops in the field really need  :


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Does a College Degree Really Matter?
Kate Lorenz, CareerBuilder.com Editor 


If college drop-outs like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and Richard Branson all run wildly successful enterprises, why is Melissa Gerry,* a mid-level manager with years of experience -- but no college degree -- having such a hard time finding a job?

Gerry joined a Fortune 100 company right out of high school starting out as a secretary and working her way up to marketing manager. Gerry performed well and was highly regarded. But when the company she worked for merged with a larger organization and moved its headquarters across the country, Gerry found herself looking for work for the first time in 15 years. Unfortunately, after months of searching, all she's been able to land are secretarial assignments. Why? Gerry believes it's because she didn't go to college.

While in the past, a college degree may have been optional, these days it seems to have become the minimum requirement for getting a good job and succeeding in the workforce.

Jeff Blass,* a 40-year-old mid-level manager at a major food company, believes his lack of degree has stalled his advancement opportunities. "It didn't keep me from moving out of the mailroom," he says. "However, it seems to be holding me back now."

Nicole McMillen, executive director for Pre-Paid Legal Services, left college to get married and start a family and just recently entered the workforce. Ostensibly, McMillen would have had several strikes against her: no degree, no experience and a late start to boot! Yet on the contrary, McMillen says she had no trouble finding work -- or getting promoted. "I suppose it depends on the type of position you're looking for," says McMillen, who represents her firm to large corporations and other employers. "For me, it's all been about performance and results."

No one disputes that a college degree opens doors.

"Most college degrees don't necessarily qualify the graduate for anything," says Charles Murray, co-author of "The Bell Curve," a book which explores the role of intelligence in American life. Murray contends that a college education need be no more important for most white collar professions as it is for, say, a basketball player. "Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you're a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript," Murray says. Murray predicts that providing an employer with evidence that you are good at something without the benefit of a college degree is become more acceptable as companies become more sophisticated about what it takes to do the job and what a college education actually provides.

For example: Terry Jones, CEO of Travelocity, was a history major at Denison University; Murry Gerber, President and CEO of Equitable Resources, was a geology major at Augustana College; Kay Krill, CEO of Ann Taylor, majored in psychology at Agnes Scott College, while Anne Sweeney, president of Disney-ABC Television Group was an education major at the University of Rochelle. Then there are CEOs like Carly Fiorina (formerly of Hewlett Packard) who majored in medieval history and philosophy and Michael Eisner (formerly of Disney) who majored in English and never took a single business course.

Or as McMillen puts it, "I've found that knowing and believing in your abilities, presenting yourself in an articulate, polished manner, and making an effort to connect with others can overcome -- and even make the interviewer overlook -- that missing credential at the bottom of your resume."

*Last names changed.


ANYONE can get a degree... put in enough time, take enough classes, and the paper follows.  Does it mean that you can actually apply any of the information? Nope.  Does it mean that you're actually capable of critical thinking at an operational or strategic level? I dont believe so.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

armouredmike said:
			
		

> The point I am getting at is that whilst it is an expensive program, it gives the CF officers who are different then DEO officers. When we are commissioned and posted, we have had 2-4 years in the Forces, maybe not in our eventual roles in our trades but in the administrative system, several months of OJE and the valuable lesson of having to abide by all the CF Laws in the civilian world. Even though getting rid of the program would save the CF money, replacing it with a "finishing School" for officers (as suggested earlier in the thread) wouldn't necessarily be as effective. ROTP is expensive but in the long run it gives the CF a different kind of officer then DEO which does help to enhance CF as a whole.



How exactly does going to ROTP make someone a different kind of officer than being a DEO?


----------



## mba2011

recceguy said:
			
		

> There are also an awful lot of those fine, intelligent young officers, that spend all that time in University, getting those degrees that hit Phase training and thunder in so bad that they are done before they start. Just not smart enough to think tactically, work under stress or command troops, no matter what their degree says. I suppose though that some get plucked from that horrid fate, into some administrative position, to where somewhere down the road, as a Major or LCol, writing plans for the CDS (because they have a degree) they will be able to determine what the troops in the field really need  :




That is a fair point. There ARE DEO candidates that do the same thing. Having a DEO VR or be re-coursed on BMOQ-Land (For example) is cheaper for the Forces then having a ROTP OCdt, after 4 years of subsidization, be released  during Phase IV. However that cost is recouped by all the financial penalties we have to pay if we are released (or VR) before our obligatory service is complete. We have to pay back all money the CF paid, including our tuition, salary, travel, course fees, any medical costs. EVERY CENT is recouped by the Forces so the financial risks are negligible. There are for sure other costs to the CF if we as OCdt's can't "Hack it " in the Forces but in terms of the financial cost, the CF isn't  impacted too greatly. Once we start our second year of subsidization, the CF either gets its money back, or an officer who is in for years. My contract for example is 13 years, 9 once I graduate. 

In response to Bird_Gunner45, ROTP Officers aren't better or worse the DEO, just different. We have just had different experience in the CF. If you take an ROTP OCdt and DEO officer, the ROTP Officer has had at least 2 years in, having had 2 years experience dealing with military admin, a few months of OJE and other experience the DEO Officer hasn't. ROTP officers aren't more valuable or anything, just different.


----------



## Drag

recceguy said:
			
		

> You still seriously contend that in order to be a critical thinker and\ or posit a business plan to the CDS, or such, requires a degree?
> 
> That, to me anyway, shows you didn't learn much in your four years. Not much of consequence anyway. Certainly not enough to put you anywhere above many of the WOs & Snr NCOs I have known throughout my long career.
> 
> I'll reiterate. Your arse is a star. The only thing you have seemed to have learned is pompasity and an outward disdain or scorn for anyone that hasn't wasted four years of their life in one of your sanctified halls of learning where a degree is a degree is a degree. No matter which one it is.



And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?



Do you think that the only method of developing those skills is through undergraduate university education ?

Where do you think the rest of us develop those skills ?


----------



## GAP

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Do you think that the only method of developing those skills is through undergraduate university education ?
> 
> Where do you think the rest of us develop those skills ?



"Oh, you mean they have them? " with raised eyebrows,  expected answer...... :


just having fun before anybody's panties get in a knot..... :bunny:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Do you think that the only method of developing those skills is through undergraduate university education ?
> 
> Where do you think the rest of us develop those skills ?



C'mon CA. If you don't go to university you can't develop those skills, don'tcha know.

D3 says we're not capable.

Knuckle draggin' neanderthals, we are. Not fit to be included with the elitist thinkers of society.

The military is just dumbasses and those that get a degree. You have to be one or the other.

That certainly seems to be what D3 is purporting anyway.


----------



## Maxadia

I've got two degrees, both bachelor's.

However, IF I do get accepted into the PRes, I fully expect that a lot of the useful experience that I have gained at my age of 4 decades is going to come from other places than my degrees.  However, I also know that some of the skills that I have put to use will help me with the administrative portions. 

And some of both will be frickin useless all around to the PRes.

No, I don't believe all officers need degrees.  Yes, I do believe that we could build a training program for officers that would build them up to be successful in a military capacity.  

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't non-commissioned members have the opportunity sometimes to transfer into an officer position? I assume that these officers from the ranks (if they don't have degrees) aren't showing a huge percentage of failure rates as officers?


----------



## Loachman

D3 said:
			
		

> And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?



Certainly not through any basic degree.

There are several professional-development courses that Officers take as they progress, as well as experience gained on the job, every day.

We did just fine before the RMC-justification programme kicked in.


----------



## jeffb

I have a college diploma, an undergrad in history and am working my way through a MA and a MBA. All of these are Civy U and I did my diploma and BA before I joined the CF. Neither my MA nor my MBA are at RMC and both are being completed while I do my day job.  Does having all this education make me better at my current job as a tactical level leader in the Artillery? No, it probably does not in any major way. However, as long as the CF is hiring people off the street, and maybe that's a whole other discussion topic, the degree is as good a filter as any in my view. I can't imagine any way in which the recruiting system would be able to accurately predict who will be successful in their phase training and as a leader without extensive testing. At least the degree shows that the applicant probably has some basic critical thinking skills, is able to persevere at a simple task and has some idea how to go about learning. All of these things can be found, and to a much greater degree in some cases, in non-university grads but I can not imagine how it would be identified by CFRG. 

There is a major benefit to going to RMC that I had not fully appreciated until I was posted to the unit, namely, the networking they get. RMC grads have the advantage of building a vast network of contacts spread across Canada that invariable makes problems easier for them to solve. I do not think that this warrants spending millions of dollars on this institution however. 

In today's hyper competitive job market, it does not make sense to subsidize education for as many people as we do. In the foreseeable future, there will be more than enough DEO's applying to cover the CF demand. The big problem with RMC from a officer corps management perspective is that the size of RMC has to be relatively fixed due to union contracts with professors, support staff, etc. The non-RMC ROTP program can be scaled up and down to meet projected staffing levels from year to year.


----------



## Good2Golf

D3 said:
			
		

> And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?



We could start by re-establishing a CF-wide junior officer (degreed OR not degreed) staff course, that included the specific subject of critical thinking (using the little blue booklet that CF officers only see [again, for some] during JCSP).  Thereafter, the topic of 'critical thought' would be reinforced throughout the balance of DP2, 3 and 4, emphasizing it throughout as a military skill to be developed within a military professional development framework, not an "academicized" version of what academics believe will make military professionals more 'professional'.

I applaud the RCAF for giving NCMs the opportunity to accept the challenge of a technical course such as ASC.  As an ASC graduate myself, and having worked with many NCMs who had excellent critical thinking as well as technical skills, I think such a decision is quite well-considered and that NCMs so trained would be an incredible benefit to procurement, systems management, technical and operationally oriented positions within the RCAF and the CF.  

While a subjective statement, open to challenge by others who my wish to refute my opinion, I believe that the majority of the skills I used during my career were either derived directly from operational experience, numerous technical courses (CF and NATO) taken, and from the 10 1/2 months I spent in Winnipeg on the ASC.  The experiences and material studied during both my undergraduate and post-graduate studies reinforced my overall skill set, but were not the principal basis of it.

Those who have noted the benefit of a program such as that which the UK Armed Forces have with Sandhurst I believe are making the case for an upper-case "M" in military professional development, yet that still can include a suitable amount of academic material that reinforces the thinking officer who can apply an analytical model that supports a logically deductive thought process.  I concur with them.

In the end, I do not believe that a policy that stresses a 100% degreed junior officer corps for the sake of having a degree necessarily supports a critical thinking officer corps.  The officer professional development process used to have significant emphasis on critical thought within the military training framework, especially 'critical' in the early stages of an officer's career.  I believe the removal of CF-wide staff training (which included the little blue "critical thinking" booklet) was misguided -- replaced with a facile policy that equated a degree...any degree...to a better officer corps than one where not every junior officer had a degree. 

My  :2c:


Regards
G2G


----------



## aesop081

jeffb said:
			
		

> However, as long as the CF is hiring people off the street, and maybe that's a whole other discussion topic, the degree is as good a filter as any in my view. I can't imagine any way in which the recruiting system would be able to accurately predict who will be successful in their phase training and as a leader without extensive testing.



Yet, that is exactly something the CF used to do: The Officer Candidate Training Program.

Infantry, Armoured, Artillery, Pilot, MARS and ANAV as i recall. No degree, straight to CFOCS then MOC training.


----------



## Maxadia

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yet, that is exactly something the CF used to do: The Officer Candidate Training Program.
> 
> Infantry, Armoured, Artillery, Pilot, MARS and ANAV as i recall. No degree, straight to CFOCS then MOC training.



But some of them MAY have had degrees, right? And degrees or not, how did things pan out? In your opinion, of course....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

D3 said:
			
		

> Or the realization that the LCol Section Head/ Director or the Maj PD/PM/ Senior Analyst need to be just as well educated as their counterparts at TBS/PWGSC/DFAIT/ Public Safety/ CSEC in order to be able to operate on the same level with them and not have them run circles around us at our detriment.



I wasn't sure which of your ass hat comments to respond to....so I picked this one.  

You are a CELE Capt with 9 years experience - of which approximately half was, no doubt, as a student.  That means you a) have the same amount of military experience as an newly promoted Cpl in an Infantry Battalion, and b) have no real clue what a "LCol Section Head" does, unless of course you are currently a PA to a four-ringer or one-star somewhere.  

I have a tad more experience with all of this than you do.  I have met Colonels who made out just fine as "LCol Section Heads" with a Grade 11 education.  I have met scads of young officers with degrees who were well-educated, and dumb as a post. I have met just as many who are adding value to the institution.  Inevitably, their education has little to do with whether or not they will add value.  Their character, innate intelligence, their EQ (a very underrated metric in my mind, given that we work in a people business) and finally their determination will be the key determinants of success.  

I have a few degrees of various types, and I get schooled at chess once a week.....by a WO.  

He is special.  You are not.


----------



## Infanteer

We had a really good discussion about this 5 or 6 years ago, but it's worth turning over now and again to keep arguments fresh.  This thread has run the gamut from interesting to outright garbage but it is a topic that I have read very deeply into, so I'll chuck my 2 cents in.

First off, I concur fully with Good2Golf's post above.  Everyone should read and understand the gist of it.  As an officer, one is a professional - a member of a professional body (as described by Huntington - go read the book if you haven't) - and not an academic.  A degree only helps if it furthers one's professional understanding.  Notice Good2Golf's point on his most valued training - his professional education.  A good surgeon is good not because he has a BSc, but because he went to Med School.

I'll also concur with Good2Golf's opinion of all-degreed officer corps policy.  Although there is nothing wrong per se of demanding more out of the profession (we should never discourage a desire to learn more), the method of using it as a yard stick is faulty.  As degree means nothing other than someone handed in terms papers and wrote exams for 4 years.  I see no evidence to the claim that undergraduate degrees produce people with better analytic abilities.  In fact, I'd argue that undergrads with strong analytic abilities had those traits going into their studies - I have nothing to support this, but it has as much standing as the other argument.

Besides, selection is only half the battle - one can pick the finest raw material, but the real value is in the finished product.  What is really lacking is the depth of professional education in our military.  I am not talking the ability to spout random dates of battles or tank models, but rather the ability to understand the core of the profession.  I'd argue this is a mix of technical education (tactics, technology, and doctrine) and a general military education.

The military, especially the Army, is an incredibly intuitive organization and has an exceptional deference for experience.  However, this can get us into trouble if the depth of our professional understanding is not so deep.  The result is we often accept things at face value and believe in "common wisdom" that fails under scrutiny.  Someone says "doctrine says the attacker needs a ratio of 3:1 over the defence to succeed" and we shape our tactics by this, but if one starts to go through history there is nothing to substantiate the claim.  Someone says "this weapon system is 90% of the firepower of a unit" and training is changed to accommodate it, yet when one looks into the mechanics of an engagement, the weapon system is not as important as it seems.  Someone says "modern warfare is complex so the HQ needs to look like this" and organizations mirror the theory, but when one starts applying organizational theory and understanding what the actual outputs of command are, it is apparent that the organization is too big and actually slows command processes down.  These are just examples of where a lack of understanding of the profession can lead to insufficient rigour and critical thought when we make decisions on how to conduct our most basic processes.  As a result, we get junk like 'manoeuvre warfare' (which still stinks up our doctrine to this day) or 'fourth-generation warfare'. 

 Don't think this professional laziness is important to the day-to-day affairs of a military?  Look up 'France - 1940'.

All this is to say that I would prefer a broader professional education for new officers entering the profession of arms.  Such an education should see all aspirants attend a much leaner and more focused RMC - the focus would be on a general military education (granting a degree or a certificate).  Attendance would be between 1-3 years, depending on the commissioning plan.  Concurrent to this training and military education would also be 6 months service in a front-line unit.  One's assessment by SNCO/WOs and the CO would be critical for advancement.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is, partially, an aside, but: Somalia did NOT lead us to a degreed officer corps, it was a catalyst, not a cause.

The move towards a (mostly) degreed officer corps was underway since the 1960s. The business of the "production of officers" has changed radically over 200 years. It is worthwhile noting that both RMC and the US Military Academy at West Point were only partially about the military: both had a mission of producing well educated "nation builders" who happened to have some military training. Throughout the 20th century we, Western nations, generally held a "big M" military view: professional training was more important than academic credentials - from 1900 to about 2000 a high school diploma was considered a sufficiently firm base upon which the military could build a professional officer corps, even in technical branches like Signals.

(My chum BGen (ret'd) Don Banks, for example, was one of the most successful CELE officers - Don enlisted in the Canadian Army as a 16 year old apprentice soldier in the late 1950s and retired 35+ years later as a BGen, during those 35 years he managed to get a high school diploma, never a degree. His Corps/Branch, the Army and the CF were able to build a first class officer/leader/senior manager on that foundation. Another anecdotal example: my cousin retired a few years ago as a senior official in DFAIT. When he finished high school (late 1950s) he enrolled in the RCAF and was trained as a fighter pilot - he flew F-86s in German and CF-100s in Canada. He took his degree only after he left the Air Force (on mutually good terms) as a necessary step towards the career he really wanted. The RCAF, like the RCN and the Canadian Army, was quite content to get a substantial share of its combatant officer corps from the ranks of young high school graduates. As  Good2Golf says, professionals could be "produced" from that base. Finally, like some other older members of Army.ca I enlisted as a private soldier; I was better educated, having finished high school, than most of my peers - we had a lot of Grade 8 education level fellows in the ranks a half century ago. The Army saw some potential in me and I was sent for officer training. I was commissioned in the same class as several fellows from RCM and _Civvy U_; we all struggled equally with the challenges of learning to be young combat leaders, education didn't help a whole lot - except for officers in the Royal Canadian Engineers. (Going back to CELE/Signals: the 1960s and 70s were a time of massive technological change for the Army but many, many Signal officers, in the field and in HQ, were undegreed or, like me, had a BA in something interesting like history or, as I recall one good friend, a skilled Signal officer in the 1960s, music.))

But during the last half of the 20th century we, society at large, began to question the _status_ of a high school diploma ~ partially because the US made access to post secondary education easier and easier. There were many societal implications and consequences from an educated society, the impact on the military was, relatively, minor.

I, personally, am very comfortable with a degreed officer corps - but I think it is quite possible to delay the education process until some level of military training and experience has been gained. I would not be unhappy with a "production of officers" programme that allowed young men and women to go to the fleet, the field force and flying squadrons without degrees, after a fairly intensive officer training scheme that includes some specialized academics - military history, current affairs, military technology, geography, leadership/psychology, etc.


Edit: typo


----------



## Old Sweat

This thread got me thinking about officer production in the three services pre and post the creation of NATO, which in itself was in response to the Soviet threat and the start of the Korean War. Within a matter of a year or so the army went from an understrength force not all that much different in organization and roles from the PF of 1939 to a force of 15 infantry battalions, three of which were engaged in combat and another three of which were stationed in Germany. The RCAF suddenly found itself with 12 fighter squadrons in Europe while it also had an air defence role at home as well as semi-global air transport responsibilities. The RCN had ships in Korean waters and began to take on ASW in the Atlantic.

This meant that the need for fresh, young officers exploded. The RCAF, for example, had a pilot training system that brought in lots of young men for flying training. Those that passed received five year short service commissions with a very small number being allowed to stay on. The army had the officer candidate programme and the RCN introduced the Venture plan. All of these schemes dated from the early fifties. At about the same time ROTP came into force. (A brother officer of mine who graduated from RMC circa 1960 told me that he was told by none other than Andy McNaughton that ROTP's main aim was not to produce regular officers. Instead it was conceived as a way to provide federal aid to education, which was a provincial responsibility.) I believe, knowing how slowly things work in the forces, that ROTP was designed before the big expansion noted above, and that it suffered in its early years with conflicting aims. As part of its introduction RMC went from being a post secondary college that charged tuition to a key part of ROTP. I suspect Royal Roads did the same and CMR was opened at about the same time.

Did that mean that the forces wanted all their officers to have degrees? Maybe, maybe not. but I have a gut feel that there was not the university capacity in the country at the time, nor was there a perceived need. The COTC and UNTD plans seemed to have worked to produce reserve officers as designed back before the First World War. Would the forces have gone for all degrees earlier? Maybe, but integration and then unification pretty well put the CF back at square one. Professional development was gutted and little green people began to equate cost savings with effectiveness and efficiency. The first 10 or 15 years of the CF was a f.cking terrible experience and I still wonder how we fought off the attempts of the f.ckwads to redo the forces.

I am not sure I have done anything other than to muddy the waters. Let me add that I remember circa 1963 our brigade commander introducing an officer study group on officer training and leadership by noting that various armies have tried various methods, many of which were variations on degree or no degree. Regardless of the method used, they all seemed to produce about the same result and that the determining factor on how good an officer corps was depended upon the training and not the method of selection.

Edit to add: The stated position of the Canadian Army (Regular) on the eve of integration was that the majority of the senior officers would come from ROTP, which implied a recognition of the benefits of post-secondary education. At the same time it recognized that officers who reached the rank of captain, which required passing promotion exams and spending a considerable period as a subaltern, were of a common standard regardless of education and entry method. This is borne out by looking at the students who went to the Canadian Army Staff College. Not everybody went to staff college, and once an officer passed through the "zone" without being selected, he knew his ceiling was major. Each course seemed to have a mix of the various officer production methods in about the same proportion as their population in the army. (Officers went to staff college in those days as captains or junior majors with an average age of around 30 and eight years or so commissioned service.)


----------



## Maxadia

To me, this discussion is like the scene in that Captain America movie where the recruits are asked to retrieve a flag from the top of the flagpole. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQO5VM8bSlg

Sometimes you just need someone who can think analytically in ways that a degree might not prepare you for. But having the other professional skills is nice too. 

Required degrees or not, I think you'll end up with the same ratio of good and bad.


----------



## Loachman

D3 said:
			
		

> I would wait until I got some actual TI and actual experience in the CF before making some of the statements you've made



Is thirty-nine years enough?



			
				D3 said:
			
		

> Likewise, asking someone who has not done post secondary education to produce a staff paper for the Bde/Base/Wing Comd on a complex issue will not give you the same quality of work that someone with a post secondary education would produce.



I will agree with you there. I have seen staffwork from quite a few civ university and RMC grads that is not the same quality that I produce, with my Grade 12 diploma. Much of theirs is rife with errors in spelling, grammar, and logic - and an excessive amount is little more than strings of buzzphrases in place of actual English. It is often fun to ask them to explain what they mean.

I take pride in my work, have the benefit of a solid English primary education that demanded high standards, and perhaps a little natural ability. Experience, the old CF Staff School Course in Toronto, and maybe what is now called the AOC at Fort Frontenac, have helped build on that.

The CF is at least as capable of teaching people to do what you claim only a degree-granting institution can, when appropriate, and in less time.


----------



## Edward Campbell

As someone who read history in university and still studies it intently, I recall, with some fondness, the best history courses I ever took: the first was during officer training, I recall that:

a. Stonewall Jackson was the subject;

b. The main, but not only reference text, was one of a series of yellow covered Canadian Army texts that were written to guide officers studying for promotion exams. I read several of them - they were uniformly excellent: crisp, clear and eminently fair, but never fawning, to their subjects;

c. The instructor was (actually just appeared to us) a very old captain (he was about 40, I think   ) - one of those fellows Old Sweat mentioned who, despite having passed the exams, had not been selected for the Staff College and would, eventually, retire as a major - a damned goo major. He was a first rate teacher who had studied military history extensively, despite never having set foot in a university. He was well read, well spoken and a wonderful teacher of history and tactics.

The second and third were also military history courses: Napoleon and Marlborough, as I recall, and the "courses" were called "study concentrations" which were, in fact, courses run by brigade for officers studying for Lt to Capt and then Capt to Maj promotion exams. I don't recall the qualifications of the officers teaching the course - one was a serving major the other a retired colonel; given their age and cap badges I would be surprised if either had even an undergraduate degree; both would have been very much at home in a good university's senior common room.

Education and learning are not closely related to degrees earned. 

By the way, I echo Loachman's comments; the ability to explain a technically complex subject to the DM and CDS does indeed require good analytical skills and junior officer, fresh out of graduate schools with MSc degrees, are almost never, ever up to the task; university seems, to me, to be a poor place to learn to think clearly and express ideas clearly, concisely and accurately. Army staff courses, on the other hand, do an excellent job of teaching those skills - the old Canadian Army Staff College in Kingston, its UK counterparts in Camberly and Shrivenham did teach both thinking and explaining, RMC did not and, I'm guessing still does not; the few officers who came out of RMC (in my experience) and could think without a lot of further training were the exceptions that prove the rule.


----------



## Rifleman62

ERC: 





> ......but I think it is quite possible to delay the education process until some level of military training and experience has been gained.



Like language training, and the requirement for this training when only 22% of the population (CF % ??) states English is not their first language.

Loachman: 





> ......an excessive amount is little more than strings of buzzphrases in place of actual English.



"Center of gravity" and others stupid buzzes the smiling hip know-it-alls made us suffered with.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Army staff courses, on the other hand, do an excellent job of teaching those skills



 :rofl:

Have you seen what passes for mission statements and concepts of operations these days?  I've seen Op Orders that rival _War and Peace_.

As G2G mentioned elsewhere, there has been a bit of a loss of SD in the military - there is actually no formal instruction anymore.  The system probably figured "hey, everyone has a degree so we don't need to teach them to write", failing to understand that SD is a technical skill, not an academic one.


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... I believe that the majority of the skills I used during my career were either derived directly from operational experience, numerous technical courses (CF and NATO) taken, and from the 10 1/2 months I spent in Winnipeg on the ASC.  The experiences and material studied during both my undergraduate and post-graduate studies reinforced my overall skill set, but were not the principal basis of it.


For me, it has been largely the same but with ASC replaced by LFTSP.  After tech staff, the next most important course in preparing me to work outside the tactical level line jobs was in fact the Militia Officer Staff Crse.  There was nothing spectacular about the MOSC, it instructed on policies & directives from QR&O, CFAO and DOAD down to the Army's LFCOs and it enforced a pedantic "do the homework" approach that most skip in relation to doing administration (we'd rather wing-it or invent an unnecessary local directive than research what exists).  

I suspect this adds credence to the arguments from others to bring back a CF junior staff officer course. 

I think I see a theme starting to form....


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... as the "owner" of RMC, we could introduce more control over the programmes in order to deliver a better product along tighter timelines.  There are legitimate complaints that not all degrees are equal, that individuals can slide through without attaining the critical thinking skills necessary, and that undergraduate education standards are slipping across the country.  Why not use RMC to deliver a professional degree that addresses these concerns in a three year programme?  Currently, BMASc is offered exclusively as a distance learn programme - it should be the primary degree for any ROTP student not required by occupation to take specific technical degree (eg. BEng).





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We probably don't need the current four year honours type programme, but we need something ...





			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ANYONE can get a degree... put in enough time, take enough classes, and the paper follows.  Does it mean that you can actually apply any of the information? Nope.  Does it mean that you're actually capable of critical thinking at an operational or strategic level? I dont believe so.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> All this is to say that I would prefer a broader professional education for new officers entering the profession of arms.  Such an education should see all aspirants attend a much leaner and more focused RMC - the focus would be on a general military education (granting a degree or a certificate).  Attendance would be between 1-3 years, depending on the commissioning plan.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I, personally, am very comfortable with a degreed officer corps - but I think it is quite possible to delay the education process until some level of military training and experience has been gained. I would not be unhappy with a "production of officers" programme that allowed young men and women to go to the fleet, the field force and flying squadrons without degrees, after a fairly intensive officer training scheme that includes some specialized academics - military history, current affairs, military technology, geography, leadership/psychology, etc.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> By the way, I echo Loachman's comments; the ability to explain a technically complex subject to the DM and CDS does indeed require good analytical skills and junior officer, fresh out of graduate schools with MSc degrees, are almost never, ever up to the task; university seems, to me, to be a poor place to learn to think clearly and express ideas clearly, concisely and accurately. Army staff courses, on the other hand, do an excellent job of teaching those skills - the old Canadian Army Staff College in Kingston, its UK counterparts in Camberly and Shrivenham did teach both thinking and explaining, RMC did not and, I'm guessing still does not; the few officers who came out of RMC (in my experience) and could think without a lot of further training were the exceptions that prove the rule.


There seems to be agreement that there needs to be a more focused, relevant professional officer education, and that simply attaining bachelor's degree does not equate to that education.  Conceivably a shorter 2-3 year professional undergrad degree (call it a bachelor's degree or an associate degree if you like) could cover the requirements - critical thinking, some military administration (which includes logistics), our OPME subjects, military writing, relevant applied sciences, etc. For DEOs with a degree, there could be a 6 to 10 month post-grad certificate program to complete the same military education requirements.

We would still have a degree officer corps, but the degree would be focused and with a significantly reduced resource requirement.  Such a move would also enable the consolidation of all military colleges onto the Kingston RMC campus and even further reduce our resource bill.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Have you seen what passes for mission statements and concepts of operations these days?  I've seen Op Orders that rival _War and Peace_.


I think his intent was to say that "Army staff courses, on the other hand, *did* an excellent job of teaching those skills."  The MOSC with its DL and two week residency was more of a staff course than what I saw on AOC.  Things may have changed, but there was an absence of attention to staff work in lieu of focus on shinny products.  Military administration was given lip service and, when real-world constraints did not support the DOMOPS CAX, students were encouraged to violate the FAA and ignore chains of command.


----------



## Old Sweat

I attribute much of the explosion in complexity to what I christened a couple of decades back as "staff work by photocopier." Instead of picking the gist of the matter from a pile of files, it was easier to just forward everything, along with some twaddle of your own, along with perhaps a cogent observation or two hidden in the bumpf to see if the recipients were paying attention. Now, add computers to the equation and it is too easy to demonstrate your brilliance by confusing volume for productive output.

I just looked up the 2nd Canadian Corps Operation Instruction for Operation Totalize in Normandy in August 1944. It is four pages long. Here is the "mission statement" and "concept of operations." I have put them in quotations because the Second World War terms were different. This was followed by just over two pages of tasks for the various subordinate formations and coordinating instructions. Anything more just gets in the way!

INTENTION.
5. To break through the enemy positions astride the CAEN-FALAISE road.

METHOD.
6. The operations will be conducted in three phases:

    (a) Phase 1 - Break through the FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358 - LA HOGUE 0960 position.

    (b) Phase 2 - Break through the HAUTMESNIL 0852 - ST SYLVAIN 1354 position.

    (c) Phase 3 - Exploit as ordered by Commander 2 Cdn Corps.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I just looked up the 2nd Canadian Corps Operation Instruction for Operation Totalize in Normandy in August 1944. It is four pages long. Here is the "mission statement" and "concept of operations." I have put them in quotations because the Second World War terms were different. This was followed by just over two pages of tasks for the various subordinate formations and coordinating instructions. Anything more just gets in the way!
> 
> INTENTION.
> 5. To break through the enemy positions astride the CAEN-FALAISE road.
> 
> METHOD.
> 6. The operations will be conducted in three phases:
> 
> (a) Phase 1 - Break through the FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358 - LA HOGUE 0960 position.
> 
> (b) Phase 2 - Break through the HAUTMESNIL 0852 - ST SYLVAIN 1354 position.
> 
> (c) Phase 3 - Exploit as ordered by Commander 2 Cdn Corps.



But.. but... where's the information operations plan?  Where's the environmental annex?  Where's the Crops safety plan?  For the love of god, where's the 39 page INTSUM that contains neither a summary nor usable intelligence?


----------



## Blackadder1916

dapaterson said:
			
		

> . . . . . .  Where's the *Crops* safety plan?  . . . . . . . .



I know the Germans would get up in arms (and demand payment) when we drove across their fields on exercise, but I didn't know that they were concerned about damage we did to French fields.


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Have you seen what passes for mission statements and concepts of operations these days?  I've seen Op Orders that rival _War and Peace_.
> 
> As G2G mentioned elsewhere, there has been a bit of a loss of SD in the military - there is actually no formal instruction anymore.  The system probably figured "hey, everyone has a degree so we don't need to teach them to write", failing to understand that SD is a technical skill, not an academic one.



Op Orders - the D Day Op Order was shorter than some.

I am going to weigh in on this one as a current DSM and future RSM.

What did I want from my officer- Pl Comd- when I was a Sgt? Tactical smarts and people (leadership) skills. I could care less what his/her degree was in or even if they had one.

What do I want from Pl Comds now? Tactical smarts and leadership skills. From Captains, good staff work (then I won't need to get involved). From Majors and above - a combination of experience and good judgement, tactical acumen and approachable.

As for each officer having a degree.....that I cannot comment on at this time. I think a good education is required - to what extent I have no idea.


----------



## dcs

For your consideration...

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo5/no2/military-militair-eng.asp


----------



## quadrapiper

dcs said:
			
		

> For your consideration...
> 
> http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo5/no2/military-militair-eng.asp


While the author of that article purports to defend the notion of degree-based instruction for officers, the points he makes regarding the exploration of knowledge, etc., make the whole notion sound like even more of a waste (especially for the junior, "tactically" oriented new officer) than before. Seems that sort of thing might, conceivably, have some value at a more senior level, or in some specific trades. Maybe.

I suspect that the various mental muscles theoretically exercised by four years of getting a degree would be better served by some form of in-element (and possibly even in-trade) OJT. Instead of, hypothetically speaking, teaching critical thinking and so on in the context of some field of knowledge that has nothing to do with the officer's role, and in an environment markedly dissimilar to the one the officer will be employed in, and then attempting to cross-deck those abilities to the real world, maybe combine (as much as possible) CF, elemental, and trade initial training with the block of knowledge marked "beneficial abilities gained by taking a degree."


On a tangent: with the eternal howling about ever-growing headquarters, it seems that capital-s Staff training should be delivered as early as possible, so more functions can be "safely" left with a well-trained cadre of company and battalion-level "staff"-aware officers. Maybe open the same training up to MWOs and CWOs headed for Sergeant Major and similar appointments.


----------



## McG

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Someone should not be almost half way to a CD before they're trained..... (4-5 years undergrad)


To me, the four years earned toward a pension is more concerning.  A free education, and then the ability to retire with 4-5 years less service to the crown.  That doesn't seem right when the troops are working & deploying on operations that whole time to earn their pensions ... of course, I've proposed changes on that front in other threads.



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I attribute much of the explosion in complexity to what I christened a couple of decades back as "staff work by photocopier."


Email has only made this worse.



			
				quadrapiper said:
			
		

> ... with the eternal howling about ever-growing headquarters, it seems that capital-s Staff training should be delivered as early as possible, so more functions can be "safely" left with a well-trained cadre of company and battalion-level "staff"-aware officers.


This could also turn-back the rank inflation that many perceive to be happening at various HQ levels.


----------



## Furniture

I'll start out by clearly stating that I neither have a degree nor am I an officer, but I am a Sgt with some limited TI. To me it seems rather odd that we require officers to hold a degree in underwater basket weaving, but don't require them to serve a period of time as followers... From the earliest time I learned about leadership until now I have been told followers make the best leaders. Why does a professional military like ours not require every officer to serve at least until the rank of Cpl before they commission? It would allow every potential candidate to be evaluated not only on their leadership, but also their military aptitude. Having a degree doesn't prove they are fit leaders, or that they are intelligent. It proves they had mom and dad's money to spend on a piece of paper.

Maybe I'll just go back to reading Heinline...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I attribute much of the explosion in complexity to what I christened a couple of decades back as "staff work by photocopier." Instead of picking the gist of the matter from a pile of files, it was easier to just forward everything, along with some twaddle of your own, along with perhaps a cogent observation or two hidden in the bumpf to see if the recipients were paying attention. Now, add computers to the equation and it is too easy to demonstrate your brilliance by confusing volume for productive output.
> 
> I just looked up the 2nd Canadian Corps Operation Instruction for Operation Totalize in Normandy in August 1944. It is four pages long. Here is the "mission statement" and "concept of operations." I have put them in quotations because the Second World War terms were different. This was followed by just over two pages of tasks for the various subordinate formations and coordinating instructions. Anything more just gets in the way!
> 
> INTENTION.
> 5. To break through the enemy positions astride the CAEN-FALAISE road.
> 
> METHOD.
> 6. The operations will be conducted in three phases:
> 
> (a) Phase 1 - Break through the FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358 - LA HOGUE 0960 position.
> 
> (b) Phase 2 - Break through the HAUTMESNIL 0852 - ST SYLVAIN 1354 position.
> 
> (c) Phase 3 - Exploit as ordered by Commander 2 Cdn Corps.



I hope that the Power Point presentation for this was prepped for the BuB so that the Col could review it for the CuB.


----------



## matthew1786

Some of us students work long and hard to earn the financial stability needed in order to avoid debt and live somewhat decently. If the degree itself isn't worth anything in your eyes, completing the degree while working 24+ hours a week during school and 50+ hours a week during summer should count for something. What's worse is (in my case uniquely) my job involves constant and direct action in having to deal with all the students that are protesting against tuition hikes in Quebec. As a student who advocates against them and their actions, the entire process has become exceedingly strenuous yet I continue to give it my all while succeeding; that is what makes me a stronger person. And although I don't know for sure, I like to think that dealing with all this crap *will*, one day, make me a better officer...  

And so, I politely ask those who may have negatively criticised undergrads in a general fashion, to please reconsider. Generalizing against all students is blatantly ignorant, and I would not expect that kind of attitude from any member of the CF; whatever their role. I'm sure there are a vast amount of undergrads out there who have everything paid for by their families and do the bare minimum; which is the general-student-model that most have seemed to of based their "officers don't need a degree" arguments upon (in those cases you all make valid points).  But don't ever forget that there are some of us who live alone, have never seen a penny of support from their families all while avoiding any kind of debt, always striving to do their best while succeeding, and then some. This, just as one mere example, are the kinds of hardships that an OCdt should have to deal with in their pursuit of obtaining a degree. And again although I don't know for sure, I would assume that ideally speaking, these are the kinds of people that the CF is trying to recruit into their officer programs.

To any young hopefuls reading this, don't waste your energy trying to find reasons on how or why an officer would or wouldn't be a better leader with or without a degree... Right now, you're going to need one, so do everything in your power to just get it done.  :2c:

Anyway, I do have one question that pulls away from this debate. The question is, based on your experiences, how do you think this news (see OP's linked article) will affect ROTP selections for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, if at all? Thanks!

Cheers.


----------



## opp550

> What's worse is (in my case uniquely) my job involves constant and direct action in having to deal with all the students that are protesting against tuition hikes in Quebec.



Just curious, what job is this?


----------



## matthew1786

opp550 said:
			
		

> Just curious, what job is this?



Private security at an anglophone University in the heart of downtown Montreal (not willing to say more than that).


----------



## Furniture

Maybe I'm missing some mystic quality that is granted by attending a degree program from an accredited university, but I have yet so see a concrete example from a university grad that proves a degree makes them better officers... Maybe my under educated mind has failed to grasp the complexity of this situation....


----------



## Good2Golf

Matthew, don't misinterpret what many here are saying...it's not that a degree is a bad thing in and of itself.  The question that many may be asking regards the direct applicability or value of a degree that an officer might likely take relative to the duties that the officer will most certainly be required to perform within the profession of arms.  

It's not that people are point-blank railing against an education, whether military college or civilian university, or an undergraduate or post-graduate degree.  Heck, I received an undergraduate degree in the sciences from a military college, then pursued a post-graduate degree in electrical engineering and am currently working on a public administration degree.  That said, as I noted earlier, I believe that some of the best education I ever received that related to my conducting assigned duties and responsibilities as an officer included: training tailored specifically to aid officers perform professional staff duties to include critical thought, analysis and deductive reasoning; completing a year-long course designed specifically for assessing technical systems development and acquisition; and the practical experiences from working with all levels of CF personnel from privates through generals (and I dare say I learned more from the NCMs on the whole, than I did from not all, but certainly many senior to me).

In the end, if properly appreciated, the benefit from completing a degree will assist, but not provide all the skills than an officer will need to be succuessful in his or her military career.  Critical and reasoned thinking, openness to learn from others (particularly those who may be 'organizationally' subordinate to them), and a continued drive to improve one's self and contribute to the organization should all be marques of a well-educated (part by 'books', and part by 'life') officer.

Your mileage may vary, but I think that there will at least be a few folks with some years in who might concur with me.

Regards
G2G


----------



## jwtg

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing some mystic quality that is granted by attending a degree program from an accredited university, but I have yet so see a concrete example from a university grad that proves a degree makes them better officers... Maybe my under educated mind has failed to grasp the complexity of this situation....



I don't think you'll ever find this.  I think you'll find that there are good and bad officers with and without degrees.  I argue that sometimes the ingredients are more important than how they're cooked.

What I mean by this is a weak candidate with or without a degree is going to become a weak officer.  A strong candidate with or without a degree can become a strong officer because he/she is a better 'ingredient.'  I would even step over the line a little bit and say that by providing a university education, you give that strong candidate a greater opportunity to develop some of the important skills that have been talked about.  I have yet to see anyone argue that a university education is a bad thing; rather, it seems that the question is whether or not a university education is worth its expense.  It is, at the very least, a good thing, but maybe not necessary.  If you give this good thing to a strong candidate, you can produce a great officer.  If you give this good thing to a weak candidate, you likely are wasting resources and producing an officer who exemplifies why a degree is not enough to make a leader.  I guess my point is, if you have good candidates, more education can only make for better officers.  For the examples we've read of NCOs without degrees who outperform their 'more' educated officers, how much more capable could they be if they had a degree in addition to their training and experience?  (Also, how much more worthless might those weaker officers be if they didn't at least have their education  > )  Unless you make the argument that a university degree is actually a bad thing, then we must conclude that our personnel are (or could be) better for having (or if they had) them.

Food for thought: Does having the ROTP and a subsidized degree program improve the pool of applicants to the CF for officer positions?  There is no doubt in my mind that the ROTP is very beneficial for the member- it certainly  makes for an attractive career opportunity (subsidized education + salary during school + guaranteed job upon graduation + 4 yrs pensionable service under your belt when you graduate) and the more attractive the opportunity, the more broad the pool of candidates.  More candidates means more good candidates- and yes, more bad candidates.  Hopefully recruiting can sort through them and by having a subsidized education program, the CF can benefit by enrolling better candidates.

Sure, this might seem like a benefit with minimal impact, but I just wanted to think about it from the angle of the opportunity it presents to the CF and potential applicants.


----------



## matthew1786

@ Good2Golf
Thanks. Very clearly stated and I can't argue anything you said. But...

any insight on the question I asked?  



			
				matthew1786 said:
			
		

> Anyway, I do have one question that pulls away from this debate. The question is, based on your experiences, how do you think this news (see OP's linked article) will affect ROTP selections for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, if at all? Thanks!


----------



## Good2Golf

matthew1786 said:
			
		

> @ Good2Golf
> Thanks. Very clearly stated and I can't argue anything you said. But...
> 
> any insight on the question I asked?



I don't know, but I would not anticipate any significant effects to the ROTP until a couple of years further down the road.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## wannabe SF member

shared with the usual caveats

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3528538#.T4Re6RZ1RFI.facebook

This came out in the Kingston Whig today, according to the article the principal would also be affected by the cuts which does seem like a strange move. 

On a lighter note, there's a lot of OCdts and teachers going around campus with an air of indignation and lamenting the end of the officer corp as we know it, pretty entertaining stuff.


----------



## Strike

I would be curious in seeing from what areas these staff are from.

RMC has expanded quite a bit in its selection of programs from when I went to school, where we were in either science/eng or arts for the first 2 years and then branched out in third year.  Now students specify much sooner and even have the option of taking credits in the summer.  There are also several more programs available.  This has to mean that in the past 15 years the staff has expanded accordingly.

Perhaps the school should go back to where it was, providing fewer programs with possibly better quality.


----------



## Maxadia

So to play devil's advocate here....if several members here think that it's not worthwhile to require degrees for all officers, is there any training outside of CF courses that you would consider to be worthwhile for officers to pursue, if they have the time to do so?  Or do you consider that to be  complete waste of time, and everything needed is contained in those CF courses?  

Personal interest in this one....I have the opportunity to pursue further education if I choose, that would be heavily subsidized by my employer.  I also am lucky to the extreme that I can pretty much pick and choose whatever I'd like to do for further education, and tailor it to my own tastes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The issue is *not* that education, especially higher education, is anything but good; the issue is that the *profession of arms* has its own, unique body of knowledge that is not taught at a university. A university degree might lay a good foundation but the _knowledge_ is available only within the military. We also 'teach' in an old fashioned way: through a mix of theory and _apprenticeship_ of sorts, junior, would-be bridge watch keepers are taught their craft by seasoned officers; beginner pilots are trained by flight instructors as they move through a carefully crafted programme of flying schools and operational training units before they get to an operational squadron; in the army junior officers are tutored by NCOs, who are experts in most fields - there is nothing in any university programme about working through fear and discomfort, nothing about calculating life and death risks, nothing about leading, nothing about sacrificing ...

The more education, for all ranks, the better, but the *profession of arms* is like the law, medicine and, in most respects, the priesthood: we are a self-governing body with our own, special standards and our own unique body of knowledge; like the priesthood we have a _vocation_ - we must have because we appear to have taken a vow of poverty!  :camo:


----------



## dapaterson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The more education, for all ranks, the better, but the *profession of arms* is like the law, medicine and, in most respects, the priesthood: we are a self-governing body with our own, special standards and our own unique body of knowledge; like the priesthood we have a _vocation_ - we must have b*ecause we appear to have taken a vow of poverty! * :camo:



To the contrary. A mid-level CF officer (Major GSO) will pull in a six figure salary once he or she has a single year in rank.  A corporal (Basic) with no spec pay draws $55K.  Hardly poverty.  Indeed, salaries well above Canada's average wages.


----------



## Edward Campbell

You're right, of course, but I retired when only a few, very long in the tooth colonels approached six figures. CWOs and most majors earned about $60-65K.


----------



## jeffb

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The issue is *not* that education, especially higher education, is anything but good; the issue is that the *profession of arms* has its own, unique body of knowledge that is not taught at a university.



And that is why officers are required to complete almost a year (depending on the trade) worth of training before being posted to a working unit where they are able to start learning all over again from the SNCO's and more experienced officers around them. Honestly, I at a bit of a loss here as to what the argument even is anymore. I fully accept that having a degree will not make or break an officer but I can't see how it is a bad thing as a gateway to begin their apprenticeship training.


----------



## a_majoor

Wading in here (and ready to be chased out of the water!)

The common element seems to be that formal University education may not be appropriate for the needs of a junior officer, rather a system of apprenticeship, OJT and technical training at appropriate times in the officer's career is more appropriate and cost effective. I heartily agree, but also would suggest that having "outside" knowledge provides a broader perspective and perhaps the ability to see a problem in a new and unexpected way. The other potential benefit is "intuition" is thought to be the mind's ability to find matching patterns in previous experiences, so having a broad range of experiences not limited to TTP's and staff work will give the person a greater ability to use intuition to rapidly find solutions to out of the box problems.

Now this is hard to quantify. Some degrees, like the plethora of "victims studies", probably induce a pretty rigid worldview that does not provide the broadened perspective we might like. Other degrees, like 13th century French Poetry (OK, I invented that degree), might provide amusing insights, but not particularly useful ones. Would basket weaving be useful? Perhaps a holder of that degree would have a metric in determining how much time and effort is needed by the locals in hand crafting tools and equipment needed to survive in places like the Sudan or rural Afghanistan. Broader degrees like History would allow the astute degree holder to dip into his accumulated knowledge and perhaps find a similar situation, and what worked or did not work then. Of course, lots of degree holders are not very astute or have forgotten most of what they learned.

Now for the other issue of doing four years of paid service with very limited exposure to troops or operational experience could be remedied by adopting on line learning like the Khan Academy or MITx for many courses, allowing the candidate to learn on their own time, and persue whatever interests please them while they are undergoing their apprenticeship/OJT/technical training. So long as they pass some sort of qualifying exam each term, they can demonstrate they are indeed getting a higher education. We already expect them to do OPME's on their own time, this is just an extension of the idea.

The only "downside" to 100% on line learning is for candidates who wish to (or need to) study the STEM disciplines; there you need "brick and mortar" schools to provide lab spaces and collaboration on larger projects. RMC started as an engineering school, making it a STEM academy for the military would bring it back to its roots.


----------



## dstevens

I currently have a degree myself, BScN which means I'm a RN. 

For the sake of argument can we please identify degrees before talking about them, from personal experience along with the support of my peers, many degrees are simply a piece of paper that hold little merit. Many of you gentlemen  and women aged 35+, degree or no degree, may be uninformed as the how severe the transformation a degree has become compared to when you were of "university age", though I recognize at any time you can enroll in University.  Back in the 70s and 80s, Bachelor degrees actually carried their weight. 

I would like to address the readers of this thread that there are still meaningful degrees out there, Math, Physics, Engineering and some biology degrees, will lead to meaningful and expected employment upon graduation. I however argue that yes, many Bachelor Degrees have lost their merit due to current and predicted continuance market saturation of these degrees. Ex. English, Sociology, Kinesiology, Psychology, Biology etc. 

The big misconception, in my view and opinion, in this thread is that people are assuming degrees *cause* an individual to excel. 
This is not true; *there is a correlation* between a degree and demonstrated excellence, allowing for a person to assume the individual is qualified. 

Scientific inquiry wholeheartedly accepts and proves that correlation does not prove causation. There is no sound reason for arguing this, despite many writers in this thread trying to do so.  

       Continuing on with the point, the cuts to RMC are concerning, however I feel that we will not be losing its celebrated tradition of military officer recruits as it is safe to say it isn't going anywhere. We do need to trim the fat, and I argue that civilian degrees should not be offered at a military institution. We talk of officers with unrelated degrees to Military Occupations, why don't we make our Officer Cadets at the RMC earn a Military Degree, from a military institution. This would improve the quality of our officers and cement their confidence in relation to a military lifestyle. The "Leading from the front" ideology comes to mind.  The sound of an officer cadet studying Military strategy or Leadership Psychology alone could improve the confidence of some of our NCMs in CF officers. Granted, there is not much merit for a military degree in a Civvy situation, but after putting 4 years in at a military institution it may be say to assume that they are committed to a military lifestyle; the degree would be free anyways. Even if you only put 10 years in you are not at disadvantage, you are no better off than any first year university student, if anything you have a leg up as you haves should have a nest egg saved from you military Pay Cheques.

I'm looking forward to your continued replies and discussion on the topic, thank you for posting,

Dstevens.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

dstevens said:
			
		

> Continuing on with the point, the cuts to RMC are concerning, however I feel that we will not be losing its celebrated tradition of military officer recruits as it is safe to say it isn't going anywhere. We do need to trim the fat, and I argue that civilian degrees should not be offered at a military institution. We talk of officers with unrelated degrees to Military Occupations, why don't we make our Officer Cadets at the RMC earn a Military Degree, from a military institution. This would improve the quality of our officers and cement their confidence in relation to a military lifestyle. The "Leading from the front" ideology comes to mind.  The sound of an officer cadet studying Military strategy or Leadership Psychology alone could improve the confidence of some of our NCMs in CF officers. Granted, there is not much merit for a military degree in a Civvy situation, but after putting 4 years in at a military institution it may be say to assume that they are committed to a military lifestyle



I actually really like this idea.  If RMC were to focus solely on military related degree programs, such as war studies (Infantry, arty, armour, etc), engineering (engineers), and Business (logistics) as well as other degrees REQUIRED by the CF, it would be a lot easier to quantify.  It would be a lot more bang for your buck if the young INF/Arty/Armour officer learned tactics, history of warfare, military administration and procedures (focussed english/french), their second language, etc, and entered the CF with the fundamentals of the officer profession, than used their real world training to develop the technical skills only the day to day can provide.  Programs would be needed for MARS, pilots, etc, but that could be integrated into much the same stream, with some individual nuances.

That said, if this were to pass, I would be open to the option of granting CFRs significant credits towards their own degrees, or waving the requirement for a degree for them altogether... at that point, they have proven the leadership and techical/institutional ability, and a degree would simply be a piece of paper.

I would see DEO hired for specific trades based on their degree (Dental, med, business, etc) or a general degree for combat arms or other similar trades. 

Finally, I do not believe that myself or my parents need to foot the bill for a young OCdt to get a degree that will help him once he leaves the CF.  If they want to join, they can join.  If they dont want to join because it wont get them into a good civie job, than they can pay for it themselves.


----------



## dapaterson

dstevens said:
			
		

> I currently have a degree myself, BScN which means I'm a RN.



Well, correlation does not imply causation.  A BScN is a degree; RN is a professional designation. While the new standard for entry into practice as an RN is a nursing degree (and some schools, such as McGill, offer a Masters in nursing that is intended for individuals already holding another degree); merely possessing a BScN does not make one an RN. There are professional exams prior to admission to practice, as well as ongoing requirements for licensure.

So it is not a logical argument to say I have a BScN and therefore I am an RN.


----------



## Edward Campbell

At the risk of repeating myself, there is *no degree* programme that prepares one to be a ship's captain, a combat arms battalion or regimental commander or CO of an RCAF fighter squadron. We want _educated_, thoughtful, mature, reliable men and women with a whole hockey sock full of desirable attributes to fill those jobs ~ a university, military or civilian provides, part of the foundation. Most of the skills and *knowledge* that will fit an officer for combat command will, however, come from within the CF and most of that *knowledge* will come from informal learning, not from courses.

What's a good degree for an infantry battalion commander or a ship's captain? Philosophy? History, or Economics? Engineering? MGen Vance holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Military and Strategic Studies from Royal Roads Military College, and a Master of Arts Degree in War Studies from RMC; VAdm Donaldson holds a Bachelors Degree in Political Science and Economics from Carleton University in Ottawa, and a Masters Degree in International Relations and Maritime Strategic Studies from Dalhousie University in Halifax; MGen Day has a BA (with distinction) in Political Studies and History from the University of Manitoba and a Masters in War Studies from RMCC; RAdm Greenwood has a BSc in Physics and Oceanography from Royal Roads Military College and an MA in International Relations from King's College London; and LGen Lawson has a Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Royal Military College and earned a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from RMC and served as a professor there. In short there is no degree programme for combat commanders.

I worry about the idea of a "military" degree programme; we have a small army and, traditionally, the opinion, informed or not, of the senior officer present tends to trump doctrine and logic ~ institutionalizing it strikes me as being a less than desirable course of action.


----------



## mba2011

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I actually really like this idea.  If RMC were to focus solely on military related degree programs, such as war studies (Infantry, arty, armour, etc), engineering (engineers), and Business (logistics) as well as other degrees REQUIRED by the CF, it would be a lot easier to quantify.  It would be a lot more bang for your buck if the young INF/Arty/Armour officer learned tactics, history of warfare, military administration and procedures (focussed english/french), their second language, etc, and entered the CF with the fundamentals of the officer profession, than used their real world training to develop the technical skills only the day to day can provide.  Programs would be needed for MARS, pilots, etc, but that could be integrated into much the same stream, with some individual nuances.
> 
> That said, if this were to pass, I would be open to the option of granting CFRs significant credits towards their own degrees, or waving the requirement for a degree for them altogether... at that point, they have proven the leadership and techical/institutional ability, and a degree would simply be a piece of paper.
> 
> I would see DEO hired for specific trades based on their degree (Dental, med, business, etc) or a general degree for combat arms or other similar trades.
> 
> Finally, I do not believe that myself or my parents need to foot the bill for a young OCdt to get a degree that will help him once he leaves the CF.  If they want to join, they can join.  If they dont want to join because it wont get them into a good civie job, than they can pay for it themselves.




With all due respect Bird Gunner, there are benefits to the program (as I posted earlier).  

In regards to the highlighted segment, that doesn't make sense. There aren't that many of us (us, as in young OCdts) who enrolled so that we can get a better civi job. We went through all the same screening you did, including questions in our interviews about why we wanted to be in the CF. I have no inclination as to if or when I will leave the Forces. My contract for ROTP is up over a decade from now so enrolling in the Forces to get a better job in 13 years really isn't logical. Furthermore I will be using my degree to to further myself in the civi world but in the CF world. I intend on working as hard as I  can to do my job to the best of my abilities, which will help the CF in some way (hopefully, but I don't want to come across as egotistical).

As for tax payers paying for me to get a better job,I am a tax payer to. We, as CF members, all take benefits from tax dollars.

We all make our living off tax money and we all pay taxes, so saying "you and your parents shouldn't have to foot the bill" can apply to virtually any member with any trade in any role in any unit, not just the programs we are discussing. Giving that as a reason for RMC/ROTP to be restructured or eliminated doesn't make any sense.

Again, just my opinion and my $0.02


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

To pick up Infanteer's point earlier in the thread, if we wish to claim that officers are professionals a la Huntington then we need some level of education beyond high school. While a degree may not help a Troop Leader with his estimate of the situation, it does prepare him for later positions of institutional leadership. Requiring that all officers either enter with a degree or be part of a degree program gives some assurance that they will succeed in Masters and higher level education as they progress.  If we leave it until later in their careers it can hard to squeeze it all in. The degree requirement also serves as a useful filter without being an insurmountable obstacle. 

I question, however, the desire to focus on "military" degrees. These can certainly be useful and interesting, but any degree program can suffice at imparting critical thinking and research skills.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

armouredmike said:
			
		

> Furthermore I will be using my degree to to further myself in the civi world but in the CF world. I intend on working as hard as I  can to do my job to the best of my abilities, which will help the CF in some way (hopefully, but I don't want to come across as egotistical).
> 
> As for tax payers paying for me to get a better job,I am a tax payer to. We, as CF members, all take benefits from tax dollars.
> 
> We all make our living off tax money and we all pay taxes, so saying "you and your parents shouldn't have to foot the bill" can apply to virtually any member with any trade in any role in any unit, not just the programs we are discussing. Giving that as a reason for RMC/ROTP to be restructured or eliminated doesn't make any sense.



Fair enough.  Consider that comment striken from the record.


----------



## formerguard

Mostly related to the topic at hand (in that it addresses higher education in the military), the following article presents several interesting considerations 'from the top' (Gen. Petraeus' perspective) on the benefit of a degreed (well, higher-degreed) officer corps, as well as providing some counterarguments to those who might be pushing for a MilCol- or military-themed degree only solution.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=290


----------



## jwtg

armouredmike said:
			
		

> . . . There aren't that many of us (us, as in young OCdts) who enrolled so that we can get a better civi job. We went through all the same screening you did, including questions in our interviews about why we wanted to be in the CF. I have no inclination as to if or when I will leave the Forces. My contract for ROTP is up over a decade from now so enrolling in the Forces to get a better job in 13 years really isn't logical. Furthermore I will be using my degree to to further myself in the civi world but in the CF world. I intend on working as hard as I  can to do my job to the best of my abilities, which will help the CF in some way (hopefully, but I don't want to come across as egotistical).



In a perfect world that would be true, but in this imperfect world your statement is probably only partially true and certainly unproven.  Your experience obviously suggests that the majority of ROTP cadets plan on a long-term career in the CF; my experience suggests that many people are in for the degree and guaranteed job, which will give them valuable experience, which they can take into the Civi world after their obligatory service or VIE.  Who's to say what an 18-20 year old applicant is going to do 10 years down the road when they've finished their education and obligatory service, no matter what their intentions had been originally?  Certainly not me.

But I don't think you can assume that what you claim is true.  There are definitely applicants are interested in the ROTP because it gets them a degree, a job, and a shot at something else later on.

I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.


----------



## mba2011

jwtg said:
			
		

> In a perfect world that would be true, but in this imperfect world your statement is probably only partially true and certainly unproven.  Your experience obviously suggests that the majority of ROTP cadets plan on a long-term career in the CF; my experience suggests that many people are in for the degree and guaranteed job, which will give them valuable experience, which they can take into the Civi world after their obligatory service or VIE.  Who's to say what an 18-20 year old applicant is going to do 10 years down the road when they've finished their education and obligatory service, no matter what their intentions had been originally?  Certainly not me.
> 
> But I don't think you can assume that what you claim is true.  There are definitely applicants are interested in the ROTP because it gets them a degree, a job, and a shot at something else later on.
> 
> I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.



It really is just my opinion. You raise a valid point, it is unproven. But most of us, if we are aiming for a particular civilian job, don't spend the 10+ years in the CF just for that. It is very true that some have done that, but of the OCdts and former OCdts I know, I don't know of any who are in the CF and ROTP to build their resume.  There probably are some that have considered it, or actually are in for that reason, but it seems like they are few and far between. 

Having 10+ years in the CF as an officer and a degree in whatever to boot, does look great on a resume. But once we finish our degree, obligatory service and VIE, we've put a lot of time in. Its the same as the MCpl or Sgt with 10+ years in who VR's. The CF did spend a lot of money and effort training him, but with 10+ years in, did he not pay it back with time in? 

I do one hundred percent agree with you  that there has been and are currently some OCdts who are in for the benefits that are applicable in the civi world, but I really don't think it is all that many.


----------



## yoman

jwtg said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.



I remember listening to a presentation about this very topic while at the college. From what I remember (which granted, might be wrong) I believe the retention was somewhere around the 50% mark after the completion of the VIE. I agree that it would be interesting to see published statistics regarding this topic.


----------



## mariomike

jwtg said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.



4.2.4 Commissioning Plan
http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530400.pdf
page 28


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:
			
		

> 4.2.4 Commissioning Plan
> http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530400.pdf
> page 28



Awesome, thanks for that find, I've often wondered the same thing about the numbers.



> A 1998 survey of ROTP cadets at RMC found that roughly four in ten of the students indicated
> that they intended to remain in the CF after completing their obligatory service. A roughly equal
> number indicated that they intended to leave. Those who felt that the education subsidy was
> important to them were most likely to indicate that they intended to leave the CF after the period
> of obligatory service (Environics, 1998b).
> 
> A more recent study indicated that only 9% of ROTP officers left immediately upon completion
> of obligatory service. (This is in sharp contrast to the percentage who, years before, indicated that
> they intended to leave at this point.) This figure can be compared to 6% for UTPNCM officers
> (Audet, 2004).



I'm surprised and a little disappointed that 40% indicated they had planned on getting out as soon as their OS was over. Of course, I'm not surprised that after 4-5 years or so of service and seniority in the CF that most decided to stay in for two reasons.
1. Most probably couldn't walk into the private sector and make a Captain's salary, not to mention all the other great financial benefits of being in the CF 
2. After five years, they probably realized they loved being in the CF a lot more than they did at RMC (would have been interesting to see Civie U applicants surveyed as well).

I don't think a 9% attrition rate after OS is served is bad, in might be lower than I expected. Also, what's with this "after their VIE" thing? My VIE is 13 years long including my university. If I decide after 9 years of service that I want to move on to something else, how am I taking advantage of the CF? 

Is this the same "if you're not joining for 25 years don't join at all" mentality? Or the whole thing about not joining the CF as an NCM to do the initial contact, get experience, then leave after the initial 3-year engagement, etc?


----------



## captloadie

After trying to stop myself for 2 days now from posting, I finally can't stop myself from making one little comment. RMC is not, or at least wasn't when I attended, just a university that granted a degree. There are four pillars required to graduate, and the academics is only one. It is taking young men and women and indoctrinating them into the military. Yes, it may not be the "real world" but it is better than getting to a unit with no military bearing except what is picked up at BMOQ. Some of the earlier comments made on how a degree made no difference in their ability to interact at senior levels need to remember that they are probably speaking from a senior NCM position with 15+ years of experience. Not a wet behind the ears Lt with maybe 6 years experience. Would you let your Ptes or junior Cpls lead a Pl or draft your staff papers (the majority of them, not the exceptionally bright one)? Yet this is what is expected of junior officers. Maybe the degree doesn't help, but some of the experience they get from RMC will (or at least should). 

I am also in favour of _returning_ the college to a more military focused establishment. Not dumbing down the degree programs, nor restricting the types of programs, but reinstilling some of the old traditions to remind cadets they aren't Queens students who wear funny hats.


----------



## Maxadia

Getting back to the original topic here, there are a few questions that need to be answered:

a) does the CF really need three separate colleges? Could they be amalgamated into one, or even two (one west, one east?)

b) what changes could be made in the delivery of instruction that would increase the quality of exiting attendees?

c) what types of instruction should be included to ensure that candidates will receive a well-rounded education - instruction outside the realm of a military slant?


IMO, I don't see the need for three colleges unless we have an overwhelming amount of candidates and we do not have enough room for them all.  Amalgamating into even two should be a reduction of at least 20% facilities/utilities costs, if you take into fact that you may need to expand a little to accommodate some of the extra students from the third college. 

I think we all value the importance of a "military slanted" education, but no one I think here is expecting that every course is going to be war,war,war.  There would, of course, have to be core courses in English (reading and writing), etc.


----------



## captloadie

I'm a little confused on the 3 colleges angle. Are we considering Toronto to be one of the three? If so, I'd say we are mixing apples and oranges. Nothing that Toronto offers can be equated with RMC (even the MA I believed is granted by RMCC). Toronto, to me, is more akin to any other of the _CF Schools_.


----------



## Maxadia

> That number represents more than a third of the approximately 185 faculty teaching at Canada's military colleges: Royal Military College in Kingston, the Canadian Forces College in Toronto and the Royal Military College campus in Saint-Jean, Que.


----------



## dapaterson

captloadie said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused on the 3 colleges angle. Are we considering Toronto to be one of the three? If so, I'd say we are mixing apples and oranges. Nothing that Toronto offers can be equated with RMC (even the MA I believed is granted by RMCC). Toronto, to me, is more akin to any other of the _CF Schools_.



Toronto does more _military_ education than Kingston.  Kingston is a university with military trappings; Toronto is a military college.


----------



## captloadie

I whole heartedly agree. I would like to see RMC go back to being a military college with Academic trappings, like CMR and RRMC were known for.


----------



## dapaterson

But, to bring this thread full circle, do we need an undergraduate degree granting military college?  Or can we get the academic side more affordably and with greater variety from the civilian sector, and turn RMC into a "military finishing school", for lack of a better term?

And should we even have an ROTP program?  Could we address our officer production needs exclusively through DEOs?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Many, many years ago RMC was a four year college that did not award degrees. Officers got a military education with many specialized courses; they could go into a wide range of jobs, including engineer officers, with their RMC diplomas. Those who wanted or needed degrees could go to another university (most often Queens) for two (easy) semesters and earn one.


Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## Strike

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And should we even have an ROTP program?  Could we address our officer production needs exclusively through DEOs?



DP - if you go the purely DEO route you risk eliminating a whole pool of potential applicants who may not be able to afford to get a university degree for whatever reason.  I was one of those - I qualified for scholarships but they were a pittance compared to tuition, books and lab fees.  I didn't qualify for OSAP and I/my parents would never have qualified for a loan of that amount.

I'm pretty sure that the CF has gotten their pound of flesh back from me at this point.


----------



## George Wallace

Strike said:
			
		

> DP - if you go the purely DEO route you risk eliminating a whole pool of potential applicants who may not be able to afford to get a university degree for whatever reason.



This could be a point of discussion.  Does one's inability to use their initiative and work ethic work as an indicator as to whom should gain entry into institutions of higher learning?  Does our "Welfare State" in it's giving people a "free ride" really benefit the nation, and in this case the CF?


----------



## dapaterson

Strike said:
			
		

> DP - if you go the purely DEO route you risk eliminating a whole pool of potential applicants who may not be able to afford to get a university degree for whatever reason.  I was one of those - I qualified for scholarships but they were a pittance compared to tuition, books and lab fees.  I didn't qualify for OSAP and I/my parents would never have qualified for a loan of that amount.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the CF has gotten their pound of flesh back from me at this point.



But is ROTP the best method to address those people?  Or would a COTC construct do it as well, for less money?  You'd need to cast a wider net, true, but would the costs be significantly different?

"We've always done it this way" is never a reason to continue things.  "Is there a better way?" is the question we should ask.


----------



## Maxadia

There may be all sorts of reasons why someone may not be able to afford to go to college....increasing tuition costs will only make that worse.  Sometimes it is not work ethic and initiative alone (or lack of) that keeps people from being able to afford university.

I do think that if we are going to have a military college, it should offer military degrees.  And I don't think they should be offered at academic colleges.  You can still offer some courses outside the military vein, in order to give a well-rounded education.  You shouldn't be going to a university that specializes mainly in medicine in order to get an engineering degree, for example.

Does anyone have numbers on the positions filled each year coming from DEO as opposed to ROTP?


----------



## captloadie

Would you then advocate scrapping the UTPNCM program as well? We could just CFR the best and brightest, and as many seem to think so far, they wouldn't need a degree. I would ask as well, what drives them to go UT as opposed to CFR, other than the belief that a degree must be a good thing?


----------



## Jed

I will tentatively add my  :2c:. I believe there is definite value added in the CF obtaining the officers through all the various methods. Milcol, DEO, CFR, UTPM, OCTP widen the breadth of knowledge and abilities from all facets of society and help the CF connect with the rest of Canadian Society.

Do we need the three some what separate institutions to develop the degreed officer percentage of this mix? I don't think so. We probably can do this more efficiently and economically with less infrastructure and civilian staffing.


----------



## dapaterson

RDJP said:
			
		

> I do think that if we are going to have a military college, it should offer military degrees.  And I don't think they should be offered at academic colleges.  You can still offer some courses outside the military vein, in order to give a well-rounded education.  *You shouldn't be going to a university that specializes mainly in medicine in order to get an engineering degree, for example.*



A poor example.  I can't think of a single major Canadian university with  a medical school that does not also have a significant engineering program - McGill, U of T, Dal...



> Does anyone have numbers on the positions filled each year coming from DEO as opposed to ROTP?



Ballpark: about 3:2, ROTP to DEO (varies year to year).  There are also a variety of other intake plans that are roughly equivalent to the DEO numbers (CEOTP, OTs, UTPNCM, CFR, SRCP...)


----------



## Strike

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But is ROTP the best method to address those people?  Or would a COTC construct do it as well, for less money?  You'd need to cast a wider net, true, but would the costs be significantly different?
> 
> "We've always done it this way" is never a reason to continue things.  "Is there a better way?" is the question we should ask.



Then a DEO-only route shouldn't be part of the question then should it, if you're looking at COTC/OCTP/CEOTP, etc.

Personally, I'm happy I got the degree before starting my career.  I was way too immature and not in the least bit worldly (read - naive) to have been successful in the CF if I had joined right out of high school.  That university degree, the time it took to get it and the experiences I had during those 4 years taught me what I needed to do in order to be successful (in my eyes).

Could a civilian university have done the same for me?  Who knows.  I didn't go to a civvie U so I just can't answer that question.


----------



## Maxadia

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A poor example.  I can't think of a single major Canadian university with  a medical school that does not also have a significant engineering program - McGill, U of T, Dal...



Way to go, seeing the trees instead of the forest....

Fine...fine....how about going to a university that specializes in medicine to obtain a degree in Ukrainian language?


----------



## blacktriangle

captloadie said:
			
		

> Would you then advocate scrapping the UTPNCM program as well? We could just CFR the best and brightest, and as many seem to think so far, they wouldn't need a degree. I would ask as well, what drives them to go UT as opposed to CFR, other than the belief that a degree must be a good thing?



Well just look at the differences between the two commissioning plans, and that should answer your questions as to why some people want to go the UTPNCM route... 

For me at least, should I apply, it would not be based on getting a degree alone. I like to learn and would love to complete my degree sooner rather than later. But I know for a fact it won't make me a better officer...


----------



## Maxadia

Spectrum said:
			
		

> But I know for a fact it won't make me a better officer...



Do tell....


----------



## Remius

When i used to recruit for RMC/ROTP a lot of people were more interested in the subsidized education portion of RMC rather than the military career it offered.  I don't have numbers but most inquiries were about how much time they would owe and what degree programs were offered as opposed to what they wanted to do in the CF. And don't get me started about the varsity sports programs...

I am curious, if anyone has this data, what the numbers are like.  As in how many are recruited in any given year, then how many of those finish.  Of those, how many complete obligatory service and of those who stays on after obligatory service.


----------



## Strike

Crantor said:
			
		

> When i used to recruit for RMC/ROTP a lot of people were more interested in the subsidized education portion of RMC rather than the military career it offered.  I don't have numbers but most inquiries were about how much time they would owe and what degree programs were offered as opposed to what they wanted to do in the CF. And don't get me started about the varsity sports programs...
> 
> I am curious, if anyone has this data, what the numbers are like.  As in how many are recruited in any given year, then how many of those finish.  Of those, how many complete obligatory service and of those who stays on after obligatory service.



Did you just join this thread?  There is a link to such a study, which is either on this page or the one before it.


----------



## blacktriangle

RDJP said:
			
		

> Do tell....



Simple. It just won't - at least for me. I think having a degree is a good thing and I want one eventually. But if someone already has an ability to think analytically and communicate effectively, I'd really question what a degree will do for them (barring a degree that directly relates to a job e.g. Engineering) 

I work with people that have anywhere from Grade 10 up to a Master's degree in the NCM world. Education does not directly equate to one's ability or intelligence. I have a lot of friends that went to get degrees after high school. Most of them are unemployed or under-employed. Those that have found good careers have done so because they are self starters, intelligent, and good decision makers. 

Before I joined the RegF, I originally applied as an officer. They suggested that I try CEOTP. No one seemed to think that I wouldn't be able to do my job as a Jnr officer even though I wouldn't have a degree for up to 10 years following my commissioning. Explain that? Does that mean that Lt/Capt don't need degrees? 

Education is great, don't get me wrong. But at the end of the day, having a degree in poli sci isn't going to make me a better leader or manager. That will come from training courses, OJT, and experience mixed with a hint of natural ability. 

I'm not an officer so I can't speak to what it takes, but from the outside looking in, I don't feel my comments are too far off the mark. 

IMO...


----------



## Maxadia

Spectrum said:
			
		

> But I know for a fact it won't make me a better officer...





			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> IMO...



I'm glad you clarified that, because I was just about to tell you that you were blowing smoke out of your hind end..... ;D

You talk about how having "experience" will make you a better officer, but you don't seem to realize the value of the experiences, insights into different topics, different viewpoints and other such factors that can be obtained from a degree.  If you(not you personally, just generally) get through your degree, and you can't figure out how it will help you be a better officer in ways other than strictly academic, then perhaps you're one of these officers with a degree that some of the senior NCO's find useless and wonder why anyone would get a degree.

Life experience or degree experience or work experience....it's all experience, and it can all be helpful.


----------



## George Wallace

RDJP said:
			
		

> There may be all sorts of reasons why someone may not be able to afford to go to college....increasing tuition costs will only make that worse.  Sometimes it is not work ethic and initiative alone (or lack of) that keeps people from being able to afford university.


Then the question begs to be asked; do these people really need a Degree?  There are countless other ways to raise one's status, a Degree is not the only one.  Unfortunately, it seems that that piece of paper has some mystical property in today's Canada.


----------



## GAP

Because the Universities have done an excellent selling job.


----------



## blacktriangle

Not to mention if you want to do more than make my mochachino at Starbucks, you should probably get a Master's in this day and age.


----------



## Maxadia

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then the question begs to be asked; do these people really need a Degree?  There are countless other ways to raise one's status, a Degree is not the only one.  Unfortunately, it seems that that piece of paper has some mystical property in today's Canada.



I'll agree with you that no, they do not always need a degree, and yes, there are countless other way's to raise one's status.

Maybe I misunderstood your previous post: 


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This could be a point of discussion.  Does one's inability to use their initiative and work ethic work as an indicator as to whom should gain entry into institutions of higher learning?  Does our "Welfare State" in it's giving people a "free ride" really benefit the nation, and in this case the CF?



I thought you were somehow suggesting that people who couldn't afford to go to universities didn't have the initiative and work ethic to do so. (your second statement)


----------



## ballz

RDJP said:
			
		

> If you(not you personally, just generally) get through your degree, and you can't figure out how it will help you be a better officer in ways other than strictly academic, then perhaps you're one of these officers with a degree that some of the senior NCO's find useless and wonder why anyone would get a degree.



 :

That's me then, thanks for assuming your experience getting a degree applies to everyone.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Because the Universities have done an excellent selling job.



Bingo. And people are still buying, too. It's the only business in the world where you can promise someone "opportunities" and suck out on them for 4 years, and then when you fail to deliver on your promise, you can get them to come back to you with more money and get a Master's to get the opportunities you failed to deliver in the first place.


----------



## aesop081

captloadie said:
			
		

> what drives them to go UT as opposed to CFR, other than the belief that a degree must be a good thing?



You mean other than the fact that certain ranks cannot CFR ?

The fact that one does not apply for CFR ?

Edit: Because someone switched the "M" and "N" keys on my keyboard !


----------



## Maxadia

ballz said:
			
		

> :
> 
> That's me then, thanks for assuming your experience getting a degree applies to everyone.



Seriously?  You believe that not one thing that you learned during the time you did your degree can be applied to being an officer? Networking, socializing with others who share different viewpoints, debating skills, etc.

I'm not saying that these skills cannot be found elsewhere - they surely can.  And not everyone NEEDS to have a degree.  What I am saying is that yes, there are benefits to a degree.  I'm not making a blanket statement that having a degree is completely useless to being an officer and that there are no benefits from a degree.

But again, we are off topic.  I thought this thread was discussing the need for three separate military colleges.


----------



## George Wallace

RDJP said:
			
		

> Maybe I misunderstood your previous post:
> I thought you were somehow suggesting that people who couldn't afford to go to universities didn't have the initiative and work ethic to do so. (your second statement)



I would say that there is likely a large percentage who may fall into that category.  Many who can not make up their minds as to what they want to be when they grow up, so they continue to live within the 'education system'.  How many "professional students" do you know? 

Things are not 'Black and White'.  There are shades of gray.


----------



## George Wallace

RDJP said:
			
		

> Seriously?  You believe that not one thing that you learned during the time you did your degree can be applied to being an officer? Networking, socializing with others who share different viewpoints, debating skills, etc.



I am in a Trade where those are necessary skills of all NCMs.  No Degree is necessary.


----------



## Maxadia

I'll agree with that assessment.  I understand it is not all black and white.  I would, however, like to think that the students at the military college have their minds made up a little more than the "professional students" you see switching from degree to degree every few years.


----------



## Maxadia

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am in a Trade where those are necessary skills of all NCMs.  No Degree is necessary.



Did you miss my second paragraph?



> I'm not saying that these skills cannot be found elsewhere - they surely can.  And not everyone NEEDS to have a degree.  What I am saying is that yes, there are benefits to a degree.  I'm not making a blanket statement that having a degree is completely useless to being an officer and that there are no benefits from a degree.


----------



## ballz

RDJP said:
			
		

> Seriously?  You believe that not one thing that you learned during the time you did your degree can be applied to being an officer? Networking, socializing with others who share different viewpoints, debating skills, etc.



Networking? I have gotten better networking out of Army.ca, at least people here are in the military.
Socializing with others who share different viewpoints? I have socialized with people of different viewpoints more on Army.ca
Debating? I have done more debating on Army.ca

Now I'm not advocating the CF start using Army.ca for professional officer education ( ), but I'm pretty sure that I, and the CF, was hoping to get more out the expensive (time and money) investment than a few opportunities to network, socialize, and debate. If you're argument that a degree is worth the investment is going to be based on that kind of stuff, then you are grasping at straws, straws which can be done/found anywhere in any area of life, and usually depends on the kind of person whether they get engaged in that kind of stuff, rather than the actual institution/workplace they are at.

When it comes to critical thinking and all the jazz that we've been talking about that you're supposed to acquire in 4 years of university, I've had to bang my head off the wall more times than I've had to think hard. I did a business degree and most profs know about as much about business as I do about basketball. I know most of the rules, I can dribble and shoot and stuff... but I'm not very good at it and I wouldn't even dream of teaching someone else how to play it.


----------



## Maxadia

Sounds like you are equating your experience of your degree with every other degree out there.


----------



## George Wallace

RDJP said:
			
		

> ..........  I would, however, like to think that the students at the military college have their minds made up a little more than the "professional students" you see switching from degree to degree every few years.



I would say that few are.  The majority are like any other student from High School looking for a subsidized education.  Wait 'till you look at the examples of people who on completion of their ROTP, have taken their Release to work in another sector, having their new employer pay off their CF 'debts'.  Again, an example of someone not paying out of their own pocket, but having someone else pay.


----------



## Maxadia

So what's the solution then?  Drop the colleges altogether?


----------



## Remius

Strike said:
			
		

> Did you just join this thread?  There is a link to such a study, which is either on this page or the one before it.



Yep.  And thanks.


----------



## Strike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say that few are.  The majority are like any other student from High School looking for a subsidized education.  Wait 'till you look at the examples of people who on completion of their ROTP, have taken their Release to work in another sector, having their new employer pay off their CF 'debts'.  Again, an example of someone not paying out of their own pocket, but having someone else pay.



George, that is nowhere near as common as it was in the '90s, especially since most employers are looking for people with a Master's degree as the work force is saturated with people with Bachs.  Your comment is is kind of a red herring.


----------



## Strike

Just saw this posted on FB by a friend of a friend:



> Outcome: 25 teachers (UT) and 20 civ staff (Non-UT) will have to find employement elswhere in 2013. The UTPNCM and OPME program will no longer be at RMC. Civ-U and online respectively. The RMC academic curriculum will be revised in 2013



Thank God that someone else is handling OPME!  Don't know what it's like now but when I took it I was NEVER able to get a hold of anyone at RMC.  Not sure how it will affect the OPME accreditation of the students at the end of their term.  I believe as it sits, students finish RMC with all OPMEs done.

UTPNCM going to civ-u is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, except for the lack of exposure the cadets will have to those who have already been there and done that.  Staff doesn't count since I can't see the cadets going out for a beer or hanging at their houses regularly.


----------



## GAP

Strike said:
			
		

> UTPNCM going to civ-u is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, except for the lack of exposure the cadets will have to those who have already been there and done that.  Staff doesn't count since I can't see the cadets going out for a beer or hanging at their houses regularly.



I would think that the UTPNCM going to civ-u the  lack of exposure the cadets will be a non-issue. They already have made it to Corporal at a minimum.


----------



## Strike

GAP said:
			
		

> I would think that the UTPNCM going to civ-u the  lack of exposure the cadets will be a non-issue. They already have made it to Corporal at a minimum.



I mean the cadets being exposed to the UTs as opposed to staff who may have been sitting at a desk for way too long.


----------



## ballz

RDJP said:
			
		

> Sounds like you are equating your experience of your degree with every other degree out there.



Nope, just defending myself against your insinuation that I am going to be incompetent during my career.



			
				RDJP said:
			
		

> If you(not you personally, just generally) get through your degree, and you can't figure out how it will help you be a better officer in ways other than strictly academic, then perhaps you're one of these officers with a degree that some of the senior NCO's find useless and wonder why anyone would get a degree.


----------



## Maxadia

Miss the point where I said :



> you (not you personally, just generally)



And the word "perhaps"?

Now you're driving home previous comments about lack of reading comprehension.


----------



## ballz

RDJP said:
			
		

> Miss the point where I said :
> 
> And the word "perhaps"?
> 
> Now you're driving home previous comments about lack of reading comprehension.



Semantics. You insinuated that the reason someone who finishes their Bachelor's and still sees no value in it is because they are incompetent. I am that person, therefore you insinuated that about me (yes, me, personally). Trying to split hairs over how you phrased it is irrelevant.

Anywho, sorry to everyone else for the tangent. Looking forward to reading more (and posting less) about the better, more efficient means of professional officer development from those who have a better vantage point than I.


----------



## Strike

ballz said:
			
		

> Semantics. You insinuated that the reason someone who finishes their Bachelor's and still sees no value in it is because they are incompetent. I am that person, therefore you insinuated that about me (yes, me, personally). Trying to split hairs over how you phrased it is irrelevant.
> 
> Anywho, sorry to everyone else for the tangent. Looking forward to reading more (and posting less) about the better, more efficient means of professional officer development from those who have a better vantage point than I.



I thought the title of this thread was _ The utility of three military colleges & funded undergrad degrees (From: Budget 2012)_, not _All ballz, all the time_.

(IOW, stop thinking everything is about you, becuase it's not)

Now, can we get back on topic?


----------



## blacktriangle

Sure we can get back on topic. 

Why are we paying for an OCdt's education, paying them a salary, and giving them pensionable time to do it? How much does this actually cost a year? What is the cost to take someone from entrance to graduation of RMC? I would question the NCM SEP plan as well. It's not just an officer issue. 

In this day and age, and with budget constraints, why do we do this? Is the CF really that unattractive today to prospective applicants that we need to lure them in with such a nice "package"? 

These are just questions. I have no doubt that many that go through ROTP like Strike et al end up serving Canada with all they have. This still doesn't make it the most efficent or cost-effective way of getting the people we need.


----------



## Wookilar

Strike said:
			
		

> I mean the cadets being exposed to the UTs ....



For the detour:

From one of the few Otter's on here, I can attest that the number of ROTP Cadets at RMC that were willfully exposed to us is quite small and totally voluntary.

Now, the number of ROTP/RETP Cadets that were jacked up by various UT's .... well that is a different story (the cultural shift for a MCpl accustomed to a military classroom can be quite jarring).

As much as I despised my time there, the problems I had were not with the academic side of the house, it was with the quasi-military side of the house. Which is my problem with RMC in general. I have no problem with officers (or a good portion of them) receive their education from a military-based academic institution. The CWO-exec program (or whatever they are calling it now) is also good to have. It again widens the experience levels in the classrooms and can (should) lead to better discussions.

However, I would submit that the environment at RMC is not quite CF. The trappings are there, but little else. The OCdt Mess is a prime example. It is not a mess, it is a dance bar where Cadets get half-naked on a regular basis.

If we are going to have a mil-coll, then let's have one. Let's not pretend.

Back on topic:

I have to say that I am not sure the degree I earned has helped me at all in my new positions or deal with my new responsibilities. Of course, that is the whole point of the UT and CFR program really, our experience is supposed to off-set the need for a degree.

Maybe my degree will come in handy a few more levels up, not there yet so I can't comment. However, as has been noted by a few others, they seem to be doing ok without it.

Wook


----------



## Maxadia

Spectrum said:
			
		

> In this day and age, and with budget constraints, why do we do this? Is the CF really that unattractive today to prospective applicants that we need to lure them in with such a nice "package"?



In certain parts of the country, I would say that yes, it really can be that unattractive.  Living here in Alberta, as opposed to my home province of PEI, the economy is doing so well that it's very easy to get an easy job.  If you don't like the one you have, all you have to do is quit, walk next door to a similar company, and boom! - usually trades people can be hired on the spot.  As for upper management....there isn't enough of them to go around, so as long as you're willing to stick out the crap for a few years, promotions are pretty easy to come by.

Now, in other parts of the country....the economy might not be as great, so you will possibly get more people from those areas applying more to the CF.  When I left Wolfville, NS. in the mid-90's, you could literally staff the front counter of any Tim Horton's or other such fast food place with Bachelor degrees, due to the small amount of other desirable jobs.  In that type of economy, when you got a good job, you damm well worked your butt off and made sure you kept it, because you never knew when another opportunity might pass by.  Therefore, something like the CF offered a more stable career choice.

Depending on where you are, YMMV.


----------



## OldSolduer

I have a question:

Infantry here, so type slowly and in small words and short sentences. 


Here is my question: What is a "UT"?


----------



## Wookilar

lol my apologies

UT = UTPNCM

University Training Plan Non-Commissioned Members

Wook

edit:
Further: Otter Sqn = the sqn that the UT's belong to, named after Gen Otter.


----------



## Maxadia

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Infantry here, so type slowly and in small words and short sentences.



 :rofl:  Thanks for lightening the mood.   ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I have a question:
> 
> Infantry here, so type slowly and in small words and short sentences.
> 
> 
> Here is my question: What is a "UT"?



It can mean two things:

UT = University Teacher, a classification within the public service, found exclusively within the Canadian Military Colleges; or

UT = abbreviation for UTPNCM, the University Training Plan for Non-Commissioned Members.


In this discussion, it's definition #2.


----------



## Strike

Wookilar said:
			
		

> For the detour:
> 
> From one of the few Otter's on here, I can attest that the number of ROTP Cadets at RMC that were willfully exposed to us is quite small and totally voluntary.
> 
> Now, the number of ROTP/RETP Cadets that were jacked up by various UT's .... well that is a different story (the cultural shift for a MCpl accustomed to a military classroom can be quite jarring).



Wook, having been one of those cadets who actually had friends (and still maintain those relationships) with people from Otter, you're right, there weren't that many.  For those who did mix, it was usually because they were in a small degree program (I was chem eng) that had a UT and we tended to meet the others from the sqn through association.

It's a shame that there was never really anything that 'encouraged' the cadets to mix with the Otter-types.  All those military weekends where people are brought in to talk about trades and deployments.  No one ever thought to task the people from Otter to talk to the cadets.  This probably would have done a helluva lot more to foster better officer/NCM relations when the cadets finished school!


----------



## OldSolduer

RDJP said:
			
		

> :rofl:  Thanks for lightening the mood.   ;D


six munths ago I cudnt speell sarjant majer now I r one.


----------



## yoman

Wookilar said:
			
		

> The OCdt Mess is a prime example. It is not a mess, it is a dance bar where Cadets get half-naked on a regular basis.



Wow wow that is totally not what happens there...... cadets get half-naked there on an infrequent basis. Not regular. ;D



Seriously though, that normally only happens when they decide to hold a dance in the cadet mess....


----------



## 2010newbie

As an ROTP - OCdt currently attending a civy university I cannot speak to the experienced gained from a degree and the applicable performance of CF officers. However, I do think that the system can be improved upon.

I like Infanteer's earlier suggestion of a mandatory one-year Sandhurst-esque term for all OCdt's. This would be great start for all cadets regardless of entry plan (DEO, ROTP, UTPNCM, CEOTP). The term could start with the recruit week, FYOP, the school semesters, then finish with the completion of BMOQ. The school studies would focus on CF related courses (OPME's, Elemental specific courses, and whatever other junior officer courses are beneficial) and no general studies courses would be taught. BMOQ is of similar length to a school term and there is definitely a lot of information digested during that time. There could be 5 "courses" that are applied to the cadet's transcript for successful completion of BMOQ (Personal Health and Fitness, Introduction to the CF: Customs, History, and Structure, Intro to Applied Leadership and Teamwork, Military Drill, or whatever courses coudl be construed from the BMOQ syllabus). Since all cadets would have to attend RMC for the first year, it should dissuade some of the candidates that are applying solely for the education. It would also help to identify the weaker cadets and weed them out faster than if they were at a civilian university.

In the second-year cadets would transfer to civy university schools to complete degrees (except for candidates completing degrees in military studies who would stay at RMC). The CF could arrange agreements with certain universities that the 15 credits acquired on RMC transcripts will be accepted as core/elective transfer credits depending on the program of study. In addition the military training provided in the summers of future years would be accepted as transfer/internship credits. Some degrees (engineering) have few electives and the cadets would still have to attend for a full 4 years. Other degree programs (maybe a specially desinged Public Policy degree majoring in Defence Management??) could have one to two years shaved off the degree completion time and could be available as soon as three years after being sworn in with a bachelor's degree.

This would provide cadets with more military experience right from the start, decrease the wait time before commissioning, and still provide a cost savings to the CF (through RMC focusing non military studies and basically outsourcing general studies, and money saved on tuition through phase training and OPME's that the Officers should be completing anyways).

I originally was sworn in on a 4 year subsidy in a Commerce program. I have since convinced my university to accept 2 OPME's as transfer credit, 8 credits from an Aviation university in the US, and also accept my time in PFT and OJT this summer as an Internship. The end result is a reduction of required subsidy from 4 years to 3 years at no additional cost to the CF.


----------



## Pieman

> Or better yet, turn RMC into a Sandhurst 1-year program for all Officer entry plans.


I also support that concept. I see no valid reason to have the military educate an Officer from square 1. Let them get a degree from elsewhere first, then come into a Military college where they can concentrate the curriculum with *gasp* military related topics. Additional to this, there will not be the 'RMC Officer' vs 'Civilian Officer' culture that seems to exists. Quote from a Captain I was under,  "People who DEO are not real officers."

Having been stuck under officers who came from RMC vs. Civilian University and then joined, I would take the officer who went to civilian university any day. For all the RMC officers I encountered, 99% of them had a horrible attitude towards their subordinates. I say this because even as a no-hook I could speak and exchange information with my troop officers from a civilian University. An Officer from RMC would only see my *rank* and not take me seriously. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Those who did take the time to listen and speak to me found that I had a hell of a lot more to say than that is considered the norm for a guy in my rank.


----------



## George Wallace

What other organization recruits its leadership out of High School?


----------



## blacktriangle

Careful George...the black helicopters are prepping for take off! 

(Ok...they aren't black, and most of them are probably NS)


----------



## Jed

One of the purposes behind bringing in young OCdts at 17 or 18 (at least in a bygone era) was to begin the proper molding of the military ethos prior to those unfavourable corrupting civi traits being picked up out in Civi land. There is a lot to be said for that approach because it does tend to focus YO's along the preferred enlightenment path without a lot of fuss and bother.


----------



## blacktriangle

Jed said:
			
		

> unfavourable corrupting civi traits being picked up out in Civi land



Like what? Sex, drugs and rock and roll? 

Better get them earlier than 17-18.


----------



## Pieman

To add to a lot of the banter I see regarding statements to the effect: "Having a degree doesn't make you smart." ,  "You don't need it for the Army.", and "This Lt we had didn't know..."

Take a 24 year old who joined the army fresh out of high school, and a 24 year old who spent four years in University and then joined the army. Have a conversation with them. Compare.  The 24 year old who spent his whole time in he army will have a very narrow perspective. He will know his job, he will know army life, and he will have some first order ideas. What I mean my 'first order' is he won't have a concept beyond what he sees directly in front of him (life in the regiment)  

The 24 year old who spent his time in university will have a breadth of information. He will have a perspective that encompasses many concepts beyond the military. He will come to you with n-th order ideas, in other words they will encompass well beyond the day to day problems of the regiment. 

Who is the better soldier? The 24 year old who joined since high school. 
Who is the better leader? The 24  year old who can solve real far reaching problems and handle the complications of dealing with a government organization.


----------



## Pieman

> One of the purposes behind bringing in young OCdts at 17 or 18 (at least in a bygone era) was to begin the proper molding of the military ethos prior to those unfavourable corrupting civi traits being picked up out in Civi land. There is a lot to be said for that approach because it does tend to focus YO's along the preferred enlightenment path without a lot of fuss and bother.



The type of people that go through university are generally not the type of people you can't trust not to go out and get arrested on the weekend. Unlike 18 -24 and sometimes up to 35 year olds you see in the NCM ranks.

( I recall my chain of command reminding our troop before each weekend not to go out and get too drunk and get arrested. I honestly found that so insulting when I was in at first, but then I realized it seemed to be necessary because sure enough, someone would.)


----------



## agc

2010newbie said:
			
		

> I like Infanteer's earlier suggestion of a mandatory one-year Sandhurst-esque term for all OCdt's. This would be great start for all cadets regardless of entry plan (DEO, ROTP, UTPNCM, CEOTP). The term could start with the recruit week, FYOP, the school semesters, then finish with the completion of BMOQ. The school studies would focus on CF related courses (OPME's, Elemental specific courses, and whatever other junior officer courses are beneficial) and no general studies courses would be taught. BMOQ is of similar length to a school term and there is definitely a lot of information digested during that time. There could be 5 "courses" that are applied to the cadet's transcript for successful completion of BMOQ (Personal Health and Fitness, Introduction to the CF: Customs, History, and Structure, Intro to Applied Leadership and Teamwork, Military Drill, or whatever courses coudl be construed from the BMOQ syllabus).



I doubt that an extra year of basic training for in service selection plans or RMC ROTP students would be useful in any way.



> Since all cadets would have to attend RMC for the first year, it should dissuade some of the candidates that are applying solely for the education. It would also help to identify the weaker cadets and weed them out faster than if they were at a civilian university.



Shouldn't the selection process itself take care of this?  Not saying that it does necessarily, but it should.



> In the second-year cadets would transfer to civy university schools to complete degrees (except for candidates completing degrees in military studies who would stay at RMC). The CF could arrange agreements with certain universities that the 15 credits acquired on RMC transcripts will be accepted as core/elective transfer credits depending on the program of study. In addition the military training provided in the summers of future years would be accepted as transfer/internship credits. Some degrees (engineering) have few electives and the cadets would still have to attend for a full 4 years. Other degree programs (maybe a specially desinged Public Policy degree majoring in Defence Management??) could have one to two years shaved off the degree completion time and could be available as soon as three years after being sworn in with a bachelor's degree.



I doubt a lot of these civilian universities will grant credits for environmental training, drill or health and fitness.  Also, some of them may not extend their admissions for the extra year that the civvy-u applicants would require.  The extra time and co-ordination here would probably mean a lot of offers eventually being rescinded.



> This would provide cadets with more military experience right from the start, decrease the wait time before commissioning, and still provide a cost savings to the CF (through RMC focusing non military studies and basically outsourcing general studies, and money saved on tuition through phase training and OPME's that the Officers should be completing anyways).



An extra year tacked on the beginning will not decrease the wait time before commissioning or save any money.  In fact, it will cost extra money to build the facilities at RMC to do the extra training you want to have there.  And it will cost more again to move cadets to civvy-u after first year.  Also, none of the training you proposed equates to any real on job experience.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> The 24  year old who can solve real far reaching problems and handle the complications of dealing with a government organization.



......but can't tie their own boot laces.

Those 24-year olds ?


----------



## blacktriangle

Pieman said:
			
		

> To add to a lot of the banter I see regarding statements to the effect: "Having a degree doesn't make you smart." ,  "You don't need it for the Army.", and "This Lt we had didn't know..."
> 
> Take a 24 year old who joined the army fresh out of high school, and a 24 year old who spent four years in University and then joined the army. Have a conversation with them. Compare.  The 24 year old who spent his whole time in he army will have a very narrow perspective. He will know his job, he will know army life, and he will have some first order ideas. What I mean my 'first order' is he won't have a concept beyond what he sees directly in front of him (life in the regiment)
> 
> The 24 year old who spent his time in university will have a breadth of information. He will have a perspective that encompasses many concepts beyond the military. He will come to you with n-th order ideas, in other words they will encompass well beyond the day to day problems of the regiment.
> 
> Who is the better soldier? The 24 year old who joined since high school.
> Who is the better leader? The 24  year old who can solve real far reaching problems and handle the complications of dealing with a government organization.



I hope you are generalizing...


----------



## Strike

Pieman said:
			
		

> Having been stuck under officers who came from RMC vs. Civilian University and then joined, I would take the officer who went to civilian university any day. For all the RMC officers I encountered, 99% of them had a horrible attitude towards their subordinates. I say this because even as a no-hook I could speak and exchange information with my troop officers from a civilian University. An Officer from RMC would only see my *rank* and not take me seriously. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Those who did take the time to listen and speak to me found that I had a hell of a lot more to say than that is considered the norm for a guy in my rank.



I hope you're generalizing here as well.  Being a milcol-type, and working with several others, of whom I have seen how much their subordinates look up to them, I think you have been painting with very broad strokes my dear.


----------



## Maxadia

There seems to be a lot of that from both sides of the equation here.  

Perhaps, seeing as we keep going round and round and round, maybe this topic should be split so that everyone who either thinks that officers couldn't POSSIBLY exist without degrees and everyone who thinks that officers having degrees is the most USELESS thing they have heard of, can have their own discussion. (there's my broad strokes to add to the pile )  

Seeing as there's been no official talk of removing the ROTP program, then the initial discussion on the feasibility of having three military colleges could continue. Because I don't see them all disappearing anytime soon.


----------



## Pieman

> ......but can't tie their own boot laces.
> 
> Those 24-year olds ?


Yea, they can't tie their own show laces....  : I often find that the NCM who speaks out about officers in such a manner are the most narrow minded. The 24 year old educated man coming to you is not as tuned in to the day to day functions of the regiment. That's the job of the NCM. He has bigger problems on his mind. The NCM sees that and interprits that the person has no idea what is going on. The reality is, he is not concerned about what color PT strip your troop decided to wear today.



> I hope you are generalizing...





> I hope you're generalizing here as well.  Being a milcol-type, and working with several others, of whom I have seen how much their subordinates look up to them, I think you have been painting with very broad strokes my dear.



I am generalizing to what I consider to be the bulk of the population. Yes, there are expections to what I am saying, but my experience had so few of them that I don't consider them to be significant. It is like people saying 'There are people in NCM who have a PhD." There are. But, they are statistically so insignificant compared to the bulk of the population. i.e. They do not represent the real picture.  Additionally, I am speaking through my own personal experience, so there is that level of bias to consider. However, how many NCM have you met that speak beyond what they see in front of their face? Very few.


----------



## armyvern

Pieman,

Experience please? That is what you are basing your "general, but bulk" conclusion upon.

In my 23 years, MOST of the NCMs I've had the pleasure of working and interacting with have been quite capable of "seeing beyond their face".


----------



## Maxadia

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ......but can't tie their own boot laces.
> 
> Those 24-year olds ?



Well, I know ONE way to improve the CFAT..... ;D


----------



## Pieman

> In my 23 years, MOST of the NCMs I've had the pleasure of working and interacting with have been quite capable of "seeing beyond their face".


In my five years, I have *very few* such interactions. You mean I would have to stick around for another 18 years to the experience something similar to what you have had? No thanks.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> That's the job of the NCM.



I'm quite sure that i know what my job is.



> He has bigger problems on his mind.



I'm also quite sure that i know what, over the years, has been on the minds of my officers. I am quite sure i know what is on my Captain's mind these days, since i assist and advise him on what he's doing.



> The reality is, he is not concerned about what color PT strip your troop decided to wear today.



I am not too concerned about that either. Lately, i have been much more concerned with coordinating national policy with another government agency.

No disrespect to your 5 years of good service but do not be so pretentious as to tell me what my job is. You cannot even begin to understand it yourself.


----------



## George Wallace

Pieman said:
			
		

> The type of people that go through university are generally not the type of people you can't trust not to go out and get arrested on the weekend. Unlike 18 -24 and sometimes up to 35 year olds you see in the NCM ranks.
> 
> ( I recall my chain of command reminding our troop before each weekend not to go out and get too drunk and get arrested. I honestly found that so insulting when I was in at first, but then I realized it seemed to be necessary because sure enough, someone would.)




Ummmmmm!   London Ontario.......University students.......RIOT.......just weeks ago.......Sorry, university has no claim to being any different than any other segment of youth.  They drink to excess.  They brawl.  They do stupid things.  Being in any university does not exempt them from being stupid.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> However, how many NCM have you met that speak beyond what they see in front of their face? Very few.



I am educated (from RMC of all places), i have completed all the OPMEs, I have completed Air Force Officer Development 2 & 3 (RCAF officer courses), a long time ago i completed the Intermediate Tactics Course part 1 (an Army officer course). I am currently employed at a unit where my duties involved providing strategic-level products and liaise with other national and international agencies for the purpose of coordinating and making national policy. 

Is that far enough from "in front of my face" for you ?

I could introduce you to a few of my Corporals who's speaking abilities and CF/GoC knowledge would make you eat crow.


----------



## Pieman

> I'm also quite sure that i know what, over the years, has been on the minds of my officers. I am quite sure i know what is on my Captain's mind these days, since i assist and advise him on what he's doing.


Do you help them tie their shoes? From your comments it sounds like you need to do that for them sometimes. 



> No disrespect to your 5 years of good service but do not be so pretentious at to tell me what my job is. You cannot even begin to understand it yourself.



No disrespect your your years of service either. I will say that your particular current position is more complicated than the bulk of NCM positions and no doubt required a great deal of training beyond a regular troop WO position. Training that required a great deal of mental focus, study, and a course that had a fairly high failure rate as it requires more intellectual capability than most NCM WO positions. What I am saying is that I would consider you one of the NCM on the more capable end of the spectrum not part of the bulk of the population.


----------



## Pieman

> Is that far enough from "in front of my face" for you ?
> 
> I could introduce you to a few of my Corporals who's speaking abilities and CF/GoC knowledge would make you eat crow.


Possibly yes. I am sure you do have a Cpl around who can speak wonderful, and is well read on CF/GoC knowledge. Is he the exception or the norm?

Regarding OPME courses, I discovered all you have to do is figure out where the search function is in Adobe reader and you can pass one of their exams. Demonstrated by a MCpl who was writing test at same time as me. He did well without even reading the material....but that is another point.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> Do you help them tie their shoes? From your comments it sounds like you need to do that for them sometimes.



Have you ever heard the expression "so smart he's stupid" ?

I've had those officers too.



> I would consider you one of the NCM on the more capable end of the spectrum not part of the bulk of the population.



Don't be fooled, my knuckles still drag when i walk.


----------



## 2010newbie

agc said:
			
		

> I doubt that an extra year of basic training for in service selection plans or RMC ROTP students would be useful in any way.



I am not saying an extra year of basic training. I am suggesting the first year of university is taken at RMC in a military environment. The courses taken would be university-level courses (6 OPME's and 4 other military related courses that would be beneficial to junior officers). Also that credits be given for BMOQ and MOC training for cadets to use as electives at civilian university (or RMC) instead of taking basket-weaving or some other course.



> Shouldn't the selection process itself take care of this?  Not saying that it does necessarily, but it should.



I agree it should. I could pick out 6 or so from my BMOQ serial that shouldn't have passed and a couple that joined just to get the first year free of school at a civy university (since if you VR before start of second year there is no financial penalty). By having all cadets to spend the first 9 months living in a military college followed by 3 months of basic and the fact that civy university is off the table for there "free year" could dissuade some.



> I doubt a lot of these civilian universities will grant credits for environmental training, drill or health and fitness.  Also, some of them may not extend their admissions for the extra year that the civvy-u applicants would require.  The extra time and co-ordination here would probably mean a lot of offers eventually being rescinded.



Again, I agree that under the current structure it would be difficult. This would have to be a coordinated effort between the CF/RMC/ and some civilian universities to establish specific degrees that would apply to this or lists of acceptable transfer credits the universities would accept. This isn't unprecedented either, there are Defence Management diploma programs at some colleges that combine RMC OPME's and college courses resulting in a diploma.

My university has a steering committee to determine new ways to recruit students and potential new degree paths. I spoke with one of the representatives and they thought it was very interesting.



> An extra year tacked on the beginning will not decrease the wait time before commissioning or save any money.  In fact, it will cost extra money to build the facilities at RMC to do the extra training you want to have there.  And it will cost more again to move cadets to civvy-u after first year.  Also, none of the training you proposed equates to any real on job experience.



I don't know capacities or anything like that at RMC, but it would be no different than RMC first-year students except all scholastic work would be military related, so I don't see what kind of facilities would need to be built. The cadets would still head to St-Jean for BMOQ. If some civy u's would accept the military training provided in lieu of general electives (and core courses for the right degree programs) there would be time and money saved. If a 4-year degree is completed in 3-years (1 year at RMC, 2 summer terms equalling one year of military training, and 2 years at civy u) you are saving one year of time. 

I didn't think of the moving costs for the cadets though, that is a good point. I also didn't say it is a perfect plan and it is the only way the CF should proceed. I'm just throwing out ideas I have had as an OCdt trying to complete my degree as fast as possible and the success I have had with my school providing credit for military courses and training.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> Training that required a great deal of mental focus, study, and a course that had a fairly high failure rate as it requires more intellectual capability than most NCM WO positions.



I got exactly zero training for my current billet.


----------



## Pieman

> Don't be fooled, my knuckles still drag when i walk.


I suspect probably not along the ground as much as others who are less educated than yourself.



> I got exactly zero training for my current billet.


Interesting...so someone could just walk in with no specialized training and do your job?


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> I suspect probably not along the ground as much as others who are less educated than yourself.



I suspect you generalize far too much. I used to be the same trade as you and even then, it was not like you are making it out to be.




> Interesting...so someone could just walk in with no specialized training and do your job?



Pretty much. I'm not even from the MOS that traditionally fills that billet.

Anyways, we're well off-track.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Pieman said:
			
		

> I suspect probably not along the ground as much as others who are less educated than yourself.
> 
> Interesting...so someone could just walk in with no specialized training and do your job?




It is fairly normal, a few years ago (over 20, actually) my boss (a two star) sat me down and said "what do you know about __[subject]__?" "Nothing," I replied. "Oh pity," said the boss, you're now in charge of __[subject]__ for the CF, and, actually, all of DND." I like to think I did a pretty good job ...


----------



## Maxadia

Perhaps you two could take a measuring stick outside and check to see which is bigger, NCM or Officer?   (Pieman and CDN Aviator)  ;D


----------



## Pieman

> Anyways, we're well off-track.


Agreed. 



> erhaps you two could take a measuring stick outside and check to see which is bigger, NCM or Officer?   (Pieman and CDN Aviator)


We would need an Officer to step up for comparison then.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ok, lets get this topic back on track please.......

Thanks,
MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## ballz

RDJP said:
			
		

> Seeing as there's been no official talk of removing the ROTP program, then the initial discussion on the feasibility of having three military colleges could continue. Because I don't see them all disappearing anytime soon.



You're right. Despite any disagreements any of us have over the merits of a degreed officer corps, I would say a degreed officer corps is here to stay.



			
				2010newbie said:
			
		

> I am not saying an extra year of basic training. I am suggesting the first year of university is taken at RMC in a military environment. The courses taken would be university-level courses (6 OPME's and 4 other military related courses that would be beneficial to junior officers). Also that credits be given for BMOQ and MOC training for cadets to use as electives at civilian university (or RMC) instead of taking basket-weaving or some other course.
> 
> <cut>
> 
> Again, I agree that under the current structure it would be difficult. This would have to be a coordinated effort between the CF/RMC/ and some civilian universities to establish specific degrees that would apply to this or lists of acceptable transfer credits the universities would accept. This isn't unprecedented either, there are Defence Management diploma programs at some colleges that combine RMC OPME's and college courses resulting in a diploma.



The problem I see with your idea is relying on various universities to cooperate. That's great that your university gave you credits and stuff, I tried similar things to get done faster and was basically told in politer terms to STFU by administration. 

It could potentially work the other way though. OCdts could be told "you have to do x,y,z type courses at your respective civilian university. RMC will accept these courses as transfer credits, and your 4th year will be at RMC, and you will receive your degree RMC in (insert program here)." I don't know how this would affect RMC's status of being an accredited university though.

Here's a random and poorly done example, but it should convey what I mean. I obviously am not even close enough to qualified to guess at what kind of curriculum would be best.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtxbZwzyv6c7dGdTX0JRSWtxT3YtTGE0ZV9iVkRUVkE


----------



## blacktriangle

Would there be any significant savings in canning RMC altogether and just having ROTP and UT's attend Civvy U exclusively? Going to a civilian university might help expose OCdt's to all those different views and issues that seem to be so important...


----------



## Maxadia

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Would there be any significant savings in canning RMC altogether and just having ROTP and UT's attend Civvy U exclusively? Going to a civilian university might help expose OCdt's to all those different views and issues that seem to be so important...



So you're saying DEO only?


----------



## Cui

RDJP said:
			
		

> So you're saying DEO only?



He means instead of having undergrad programs at RMC, we turn to more of an American ROTC-esque style of officer education.


----------



## Strike

RDJP said:
			
		

> So you're saying DEO only?



That's not DEO.  DEO is joining the CF with a degree already.  ROTP is getting the CF to pay for your schooling while you are studying.


----------



## Maxadia

Whoops, brain fart...I thought it meant have them complete a civilian university degree before being accepted.

Carry on... :-[


----------



## agc

2010newbie said:
			
		

> I am not saying an extra year of basic training.



Sure looks like it to me:



> The term could start with the recruit week, FYOP, the school semesters, then finish with the completion of BMOQ. The school studies would focus on CF related courses (OPME's, Elemental specific courses, and whatever other junior officer courses are beneficial)



Most in service applicants end up being BMOQ bypasses (so also no need for anything that comes before it), and often have the required environmental training.  Usually they have some or all of their OPME credits as well.  The ROTP candidates usually do most of the rest of that stuff in the summer terms.  What time is being saved here?



> I am suggesting the first year of university is taken at RMC in a military environment. The courses taken would be university-level courses (6 OPME's and 4 other military related courses that would be beneficial to junior officers). Also that credits be given for BMOQ and MOC training for cadets to use as electives at civilian university (or RMC) instead of taking basket-weaving or some other course.



All the in service guys have been in a military environment for a minimum of 4 years, usually a lot more.  The DEO guys will be put to work in a military environment right away.  The RMC guys too.  Are you just saying you wished you'd gone to RMC instead?



> I agree it should. I could pick out 6 or so from my BMOQ serial that shouldn't have passed



Apparently, the CFLRS staff disagree.



> and a couple that joined just to get the first year free of school at a civy university (since if you VR before start of second year there is no financial penalty). By having all cadets to spend the first 9 months living in a military college followed by 3 months of basic and the fact that civy university is off the table for there "free year" could dissuade some.



Why would swapping the location of a year of free education stop anyone from using the system?  Especially after you went out and convinced the civvy-u he really wants to go to that they should give full credit for all the work.  If you're saying we can get rid of the abuser after one year instead of having to keep him for 30: great IMO.



> Again, I agree that under the current structure it would be difficult. This would have to be a coordinated effort between the CF/RMC/ and some civilian universities to establish specific degrees that would apply to this or lists of acceptable transfer credits the universities would accept. This isn't unprecedented either, there are Defence Management diploma programs at some colleges that combine RMC OPME's and college courses resulting in a diploma.



We have a list of degrees that are acceptable already.  If your university doesn't include the OPME credits in the program, you do them later on your own time.  Seems like a pretty small thing to do in exchange for a 100% scholarship at the university of your choice.



> I don't know capacities or anything like that at RMC, but it would be no different than RMC first-year students except all scholastic work would be military related, so I don't see what kind of facilities would need to be built. The cadets would still head to St-Jean for BMOQ. If some civy u's would accept the military training provided in lieu of general electives (and core courses for the right degree programs) there would be time and money saved. If a 4-year degree is completed in 3-years (1 year at RMC, 2 summer terms equalling one year of military training, and 2 years at civy u) you are saving one year of time.



Sending all the officers there for their first year instead of less than half of them would require a lot more classrooms and professors.  Environmental training is usually conducted within the environment, where those training facilities already exist.  This would require posting a bunch of highly skilled people away from their operational bases, and rotating them through at a fairly high frequency to keep their skills up to date.

If some civvy-u would accept that, it would be great.  But then you have to wait on their PLAR process.  And if the specific degree can't be shortened by a whole year through this, you just turned a 3 or 4 year degree into a 4 or 5 year degree.



> I didn't think of the moving costs for the cadets though, that is a good point. I also didn't say it is a perfect plan and it is the only way the CF should proceed. I'm just throwing out ideas I have had as an OCdt trying to complete my degree as fast as possible and the success I have had with my school providing credit for military courses and training.



RMC has a degree designed for producing officers as fast as possible:  the BMASc.  They grant credit for mil and second language trg, and can recognize previous post-secondary education.  It's not perfect either, but it's doing the job for the CF and me.  Maybe you picked the wrong entry plan for what you want.

If the CF needs degreed officers, it takes as long as it takes.  The CEOTP has given them a bit of a stop-gap measure in this regard, although it takes its fair share of criticism for not having enforced completion of the degree.  That said those of us selected under the plan now know the implications for not holding up our end of the bargain.  We're moving out of the environment where "as fast as possible" is the theme for skill production, because our manning levels are much closer to where they need to be.


----------



## blacktriangle

If we accept that degrees are needed for all officers, and that the CF will continue to offer entry plans that pay for degrees, the only other avenue for savings I see would be shutting down RMC. We already have plenty of universities in Canada, and I don't really see the point in the CF having it's own. Plus sending people to civvy U should allow for a more varied perspective and schooling. RMC isn't quite the real military from what I've seen and what other's have said, but it's not your typical university either. I'd just assume let the OCdt's pick where they want to go on civvy st. 

Would cutting the entirety of RMC save the CF a fair amount in terms of overhead, or is it just a drop in the bucket? 

Without knowing the numbers and money aside, I see three potential points that would benefit the CF; 

1. Canadians get more exposure to the CF and it's members 

2. No "Ring Knockers" 

3. OCdt's get a normal university experience with all the good and the bad that comes with it

At the end of the day though, if there are no true cost savings, I guess it would be pointless. Just a thought though.


----------



## agc

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Would cutting the entirety of RMC save the CF a fair amount in terms of overhead, or is it just a drop in the bucket?



Maybe?  Or, it could just obscure the real costs to the taxpayer behind subsidy provided through other channels and layers of government.


----------



## Maxadia

So if it's not really military, and it's not really civilian, what's the benefit? And does the benefit(s) outweight the costs of operating three of them?


----------



## a_majoor

Pieman said:
			
		

> Take a 24 year old who joined the army fresh out of high school, and a 24 year old who spent four years in University and then joined the army. Have a conversation with them. Compare.  The 24 year old who spent his whole time in he army will have a very narrow perspective. He will know his job, he will know army life, and he will have some first order ideas. What I mean my 'first order' is he won't have a concept beyond what he sees directly in front of him (life in the regiment)
> 
> The 24 year old who spent his time in university will have a breadth of information. He will have a perspective that encompasses many concepts beyond the military. He will come to you with n-th order ideas, in other words they will encompass well beyond the day to day problems of the regiment.



I will also disagree here Pieman.

The cloistered 24 year old officer who sees little outside the Regimental Lines is an artifact of long ago times when you literally could not leave the lines. Today's officers and NCM's are hooked up almost 24/7 to the Internet (for good or ill) and can access and process huge amounts of information. Now we can kvetch that much of this information may actually be Facebook postings or World of Warcraft, but in the civi world we see much of the same level of interest or discourse from the people we meet.

OTOH a degreed officer may actually have a very narrow view because that is how he/she was educated. "Victim studies" (Woman's studies, Gender studies, Aboriginal Studies, Queer studies etc.) are pretty notorious for enforcing a rigid world view on their students, but judging from other examples from Universities (suppression of speech when it is "offensive", use of brownshirt tactics to stop guest speakers from making presentations, pushing agendas like "climate change" and so on), getting a broad perspective doesn't always seem to be the desired outcome. Now this isn't 100% of the cases by any means (and frankly, most people who get indoctrinated like that rarely join the CF anyway, based on my unscientific recollections of officer candidates I have taught over the years), so generalization is difficult.

Perhaps what we need is to quantify what it is we actually want out of the educated officer corps (and for that matter, everyone else). Broad perspectives and flexibility of thought and attitude are very desirable traits, but is University level education necessarily the best means of instilling that in a person?


----------



## George Wallace

Spectrum said:
			
		

> If we accept that degrees are needed for all officers, .......



Actually, this is not a result of the CF, but of the Government who think that all their senior 'Bureaucrats'/'managers' should have a Degree.  This indicates that the Government doesn't look at the CF needing leaders, but managers/bureaucrats.  Therein lies the rub.


----------



## dapaterson

The degreed officer corps was a CF initiative, not a GoC initiative.  In the mid 1990s a series of studies was done on behalf of the MND by a group of academics including Bercusson, Granatstein and Morton.  Following those studies and based on the advice provided a CF decision was made.


----------



## Maxadia

Regardless, there is a need for a degreed officer corps. Why?  Because that is what the CF currently states as its need.

We can keep coming back to this over and over again, but the degreed corps is here to stay for the time being, and whether or not we personally think we need one is not the topic of this thread.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> Regarding OPME courses, I discovered all you have to do is figure out where the search function is in Adobe reader and you can pass one of their exams. Demonstrated by a MCpl who was writing test at same time as me. He did well without even reading the material....but that is another point.



I'm sorry to come back to this but, you are a ***** !!

I dare you to use CTRL-F in Adobe reader to produce the papers/essays that need to be written (at least when i did them) for some of those OPMEs.


----------



## Pieman

> Perhaps what we need is to quantify what it is we actually want out of the educated officer corps (and for that matter, everyone else). Broad perspectives and flexibility of thought and attitude are very desirable traits, but is University level education necessarily the best means of instilling that in a person?



A very good question there.


----------



## Pieman

> I'm sorry to come back to this but, you are a ***** !!
> 
> I dare you to use CTRL-F in Adobe reader to produce the papers/essays that need to be written (at least when i did them) for some of those OPMEs.



Sorry you feel that way. However, I did two OPME courses online. First one I actually studied and read...then I discovered the Cntr-F function and it was like getting a education at a ATM machine. They were not much more difficult than a first year university course, if that. Barf up information you read recently. Otherwise use cntrl-F.

Can't speak for any of the essays as courses I took did not have them.

I'm not saying it's not work. But, it's not exactly testing the limits of intellectual capacity either.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pieman, you took the 2 easy ones. The remaining 4 are university level courses and I believe grant partial credits.


----------



## Pieman

> Pieman, you took the 2 easy ones. The remaining 4 are university level courses and I believe grant partial credits.


Did I? Which ones are the easy ones exactly?


----------



## PuckChaser

Pieman said:
			
		

> Did I? Which ones are the easy ones exactly?



The ones you can Ctrl-F and pass? DCE001 and DCE002 are weekend courses and use a question bank to randomly generate questions. All the others except history grant 1 credit at RMC and require essays submitted on a schedule. History even PLARs a mod for your ILQ.


----------



## Pieman

> The ones you can Ctrl-F and pass? DCE001 and DCE002 are weekend courses and use a question bank to randomly generate questions. All the others except history grant 1 credit at RMC and require essays submitted on a schedule. History even PLARs a mod for your ILQ.


Got it. I see your point and they do get more difficult after the first two.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> History even PLARs a mod for your ILQ.



It PLARs Mod 1 and 2. POE 206 PLARs mod 3. (This is all for the DL portion only)


----------



## dcs

Does anyone know the actual cost of an RMC student vs civi U ?..    And for that matter marginal cost of adding each additional???

Is it not possible that RMC gets large government grants (the same as other universities) etc and pays full student fees at a CIVI university..... which may be potentially more.    Only about 20% of the cost of a University education is paid for by student fees.  

And... the salary paid to University students in the reserves over the summer up to 4 months....... would it be that much different than what is paid to RMC students after room and board  deducted etc.

DEO officers need to get the second language, and other military courses etc that are done by RMC students once they join up, as do many of the Civ U folks......

What are the numbers that leave under ROTP in RMC and Civi U???   And after minimal service required???
Are those leaving from RMC ones that would stick it out at Civi U and then simply wait out the time and not give a great effort???

I truly do not know the answer to all of these questions, but think that having a Military College should be invaluable in having the best and brightest of young women and men an opportunity in the military and the exposure to it full tilt.

If I ran the zoo.....

- All programs with the exception of nursing etc not offered would be strictly at St Jean and RMC.  Very few Civi U offerings.

- All first year ( and second for CEGEP) would stay at St Jean for first year.  Trained and heavily involved with staff from the Mega and Vandoos that I think would be invaluable and give them a much better appreciation of all members of CF... both official languages etc.

- Where possible try to co-ordinate offering nursing etc in co-ordiantion with Queens University.  Have ROTP involved extensively with RMC. 

- Find some way to limit or prevent individuals from getting one year of university paid with no intention of completing degree or serving........      Perhaps if leave by January 1st no pay back... if after 50% paid back???

- increase the opportunity and availability for NCMs to apply.

- Increase the number of cadets at RMC as all first years at St Jean and renovations done at residence building for start of next year.

I know that there will be  many who will not agree .... but just a few thoughts ...


----------



## a_majoor

> Perhaps what we need is to quantify what it is we actually want out of the educated officer corps (and for that matter, everyone else). Broad perspectives and flexibility of thought and attitude are very desirable traits, but is University level education necessarily the best means of instilling that in a person?





			
				Pieman said:
			
		

> A very good question there.



I'm afraid I've run out of smarts here. Can anyone suggest an answer?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yup,....one stream of soldier, but that's for another thread.


----------



## fhg1893

If anyone wants to know about OPME, or what's happening at DCS, you might want to ask me.

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/105553/post-1135674/topicseen.html#new


----------



## a_majoor

If we want to train for skills, we have lots of models to follow. Community collegeand our own skills trainingmodels work wonders. OTOH, if the purpose of Military College (or any institution of higher learning) is supposed to instill smarts and critical thinking, maybe there is a different way to go about it. This sort of research hasn't been fully replicated, but if it does work the results will be astounding:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/iq-points-for-sale-cheap.html?_r=1



> *I.Q. Points for Sale, Cheap*
> By DAVID Z. HAMBRICK
> Published: May 5, 2012
> 
> A STRIKING trend in today’s culture is the pursuit of rapid cognitive enhancement. The idea behind many popular video and online “brain-training” games is that practicing tasks that strengthen memory, attention and other mental processes will make you a smarter person.
> 
> Nintendo markets its Brain Age game as a “treadmill for the mind.” Lumosity, which claims 20 million users, says that its brain-training games offer “real-world cognitive benefits in individuals of all ages.” Cogmed, which has been adopted by schools in the United States and Sweden, helps its users “unlock their natural cognitive abilities by training their brain.” Forbes magazine recently declared cognitive enhancement the next “trillion-dollar industry.” The United States military is even exploring the possibility of using such cognitive training to increase soldiers’ capacities.
> 
> Why the craze? Until recently, the overwhelming consensus in psychology was that intelligence was essentially a fixed trait. But in 2008, an article by a group of researchers led by Susanne Jaeggi and Martin Buschkuehl challenged this view and renewed many psychologists’ enthusiasm about the possibility that intelligence was trainable — with precisely the kind of tasks that are now popular as games.
> 
> Yet I and many other intelligence researchers are skeptical of this research. Before anyone spends any more time and money looking for a quick and easy way to boost intelligence, it’s important to explain why we’re not sold on the idea.
> 
> In the Jaeggi study, the researchers began by having participants complete a test of reasoning to measure their “fluid” intelligence — the ability to draw connections between things, solve novel problems and adapt to new situations. Then some of the participants received up to eight hours of training in a difficult cognitive task that required paying careful attention to two streams of information (a version of this task is now marketed by Lumosity); others were assigned to a control group and received no such training. Then all of the participants took a different version of the reasoning test.
> 
> The results were startling. The authors reported that the trained participants showed a larger gain in the reasoning test than the control group did, and despite the relatively brief period of training, this gain was large enough that it would be expected to substantially improve performance in everyday life.
> 
> Does this sound like an extraordinary claim? It should. There have been many attempts to demonstrate large, lasting gains in intelligence through educational interventions, with few successes. When gains in intelligence have been achieved, they have been modest and the result of many years of effort.
> 
> For instance, in a University of North Carolina study known as the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project, children received an intensive educational intervention from infancy to age 5 designed to increase intelligence. In follow-up tests, these children showed an advantage of six I.Q. points over a control group (and as adults, they were four times more likely to graduate from college). By contrast, the increase implied by the findings of the Jaeggi study was six I.Q. points after only six hours of training — an I.Q. point an hour.
> 
> Though the Jaeggi results are intriguing, many researchers have failed to demonstrate statistically significant gains in intelligence using other, similar cognitive training programs, like Cogmed’s. The Web site PsychFileDrawer.org, which was founded as an archive for failed replication attempts in psychological research, maintains a Top 20 list of studies that its users would like to see replicated. The Jaeggi study is currently No. 1. While this is an indication of the interest among psychologists in the idea that cognitive training might produce remarkable gains in intelligence, it also reflects a widespread cautiousness toward the results of a single study.
> 
> Another reason for skepticism is a weakness in the Jaeggi study’s design: it included only a single test of reasoning to measure gains in intelligence. As the cognitive psychologists Zachary Shipstead, Thomas Redick and Randall Engle note in a recent review of the cognitive training literature in Psychological Bulletin, intelligence can’t be measured with any single test; it reflects what tests of many cognitive abilities have in common. Demonstrating that subjects are better on one reasoning test after cognitive training doesn’t establish that they’re smarter. It merely establishes that they’re better on one reasoning test.
> 
> We shouldn’t be surprised if extraordinary claims of quick gains in intelligence turn out to be wrong. Most extraordinary claims are. But we shouldn’t be totally discouraged, either. Results of studies like the Abecedarian project suggest that intelligence can be increased by making improvements in people’s environments, and that this can improve people’s lives.
> 
> But such studies also suggest that meaningful increases are not likely without a substantial commitment of resources. If we lose sight of this fact, this is a commitment we may never make.
> 
> David Z. Hambrick is an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah - but do we need a degree-granting institution?  Or more of a trade-school that provides additional education needed for specific occupations?
> 
> AFAIK Sandhust is not a university; why does RMC need to be one?
> 
> (And why does a Commander for 600-700 officer cadets need to be a 1*, when a battle group of 1500 can be commanded by a LCol?)



The Commander for 600-700 officer cadets is not a 1* it is a LCol who goes by the title Director of Cadets.  This person is responsible for the implementation of the ROTP and UTPNCM program at the military college.

The 1* oversee's the entire operation of the College which is much more then just the Cadet Wing.  

200+ Staff
1000+ Full-time students
5000+ Part-time students
660 Post-graduates

Not too mention a budget of more than 250 million dollars, I think that is a little more then a LCol should be handling, don't you?

RMC is not just an institution for producing officer cadets, it is much much more than that.

There are also some very important government programs which RMC oversee's that don't directly involve the cadet wing i.e.

Department of Applied Military Sciences (Think Tech Staff)
War Studies Department
Defence Management
Division of Continuing Studies
Division of Graduate Studies and Research

You need to stop thinking of RMC as simply one of the methods of pumping out Officers for the CF because it is so much more then that.  It is the Canadian Forces very own think-tank whose research is solely dedicated to the military arts, what civilian university can offer that?  Valuable research for the CF is done at RMC and without the college we would need to outsource much of it which would probably cost us more and give us less bang for our buck.

Stop by and goto one of the engineering departments someday you will see some of the valuable research being done which is not only helping the CF but also saving soldiers lives.  I know this because I have friends I went to school with there who in their 4th year thesis were designing robots to try and find IED's/UXO's as well as other devices. 

Does RMC have its problems?  Sure, but I believe we are better off with it then without it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Many, many years ago Gen (Ret'd) Ramsey Withers did a study on RMC.
> 
> Amongst the  several proposals considered was one for a _slimmed down_ RMC with three departments:
> 
> 1. Engineering - teaching selected core course curricula for MILE, MARE, AERE and electronics - of course CELE and EME would be trained but the core courses would be as indicated. Equally all officers could take engineering degrees but within the limits indicated;
> 
> 2. Logistics - teaching a range of topics, including courses leading towards a BComm, but aiming to produce a recognized degree in Logistics/Management; and
> 
> 3. The Military Arts - history, economics, geography, etc, etc, etc, all wrapped up in a _strategic studies_ sort of programme.
> 
> The premise was that most CF officers would come from Civvy U, through a reborn UNTD/COTC sort of thing. RMC would be even more selective and much more specialized.
> 
> I'm not sure how the whole project ended, nor do I know how that particular submission was received. I recall it because Gen Withers asked my boss for some inputs and he (RAdm Ed Healey) told me to draft them; but it was a very secondary task and, for the life, of me, I can't remember what we said except that we insisted upon a solid core course curriculum for MARE officers.



I read the Withers Report when I was in school, the intent wasn't to get rid of degrees, it was to rationalize the way the programs were implemented with the intent being to be able to pump more officers out of RMC in less time.  This would be accomplished by implementing a series of changes to the way the program was structured with the intent being that *more officers* enter the CF having come from RMC.

I will post an outline from the executive summary of what the Withers Report aimed to do, the document is still available online btw.



> Our first recommendation is that the College fully implement the Balanced Excellence Model detailed in this report.
> 
> Recommendations 2 - 7 seek to better integrate RMC into the CF, encouraging the real stakeholders in the College, the three Environments, to ensure its excellence.
> 
> Recommendation 8 seeks to improve recruiting and selection. In this regard, MOC selection should be delayed until a RMC cadet's second academic year.
> 
> Recommendations 9 - 14 address the academic pillar. Central to these considerations is the absolute requirement to enhance the militarily oriented "core curriculum" for all cadets over all four academic years.
> 
> Recommendations 15 - 24 address the issues of military ethos and the creation of a professionally developed and delivered military training program at the College and in the CF.
> 
> Recommendation 25 is intended to build on the existing language program to achieve even higher standards of bilingualism in the RMC cadet.
> 
> Recommendations 26 - 27 suggest how the physical education pillar can be better integrated into the RMC experience and made more relevant to the CF.
> 
> Recommendations 28 - 34 address the requirement to more effectively integrate the four pillars at RMC.
> 
> The Study concludes that three "large new ideas" must inform and condition the RMC experience in the future.
> 
> A philosophy of facilitating success whereby cadets are mentored and guided towards success must pervade training and education in lieu of the more "Darwinian" model of evaluation for filtering out the unfit.
> 
> Reconnect RMC to its raison d'être, the CF as a whole. This will require the reciprocal commitment and effort from the staff at RMC as well as the various stakeholders in the CF. This idea begins to take effect with the enhancement of the recruiting and selection processes as they apply to officers.
> 
> The military pillar of the undergraduate program will have to be significantly strengthened. The critical challenge will be to bring about the necessary integration of all four pillars at the College. This will require decisive action from the Commandant and the Principal within the strategic guidance provided by the BOG.
> 
> The implementation of the Balanced Excellence Model should begin immediately. A suggested four part process is outlined in the concluding section of the Report. This action is judged cost-effective and will result in an increase at RMC to approximately 1500 cadets. The result will be an increase of RMC graduates in the CF officer corps from the current 25% to 35% - 40%.


  From:  http://www.rmc.ca/bg-cg/rep-rap/withers/es-resume-eng.asp


----------



## Infanteer

250 million bucks?!?  Wowza - compare that to the annual operating budget of a CMBG and I now have a target for cuts!



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Department of Applied Military Sciences (Think Tech Staff)



Can be done at Toronto/Kingston (think Shrivingham)



> War Studies Department
> Defence Management
> Division of Continuing Studies
> Division of Graduate Studies and Research



UNB and UofC have fine Defence Studies Programs.  Real graduate schools are found all over the country (and on the internet).



> Stop by and goto one of the engineering departments someday you will see some of the valuable research being done which is not only helping the CF but also saving soldiers lives.



DRDC?  Defence Contractors?

I'm not arguing that we can go without all these capabilities, but I suspect there may be ways to achieve efficiencies.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

> 250 million bucks?!?  Wowza - compare that to the annual operating budget of a CMBG and I now have a target for cuts!
> 
> Can be done at Toronto/Kingston (think Shrivingham)
> 
> UNB and UofC have fine Defence Studies Programs.  Real graduate schools are found all over the country (and on the internet).
> 
> DRDC?  Defence Contractors?
> 
> I'm not arguing that we can go without all these capabilities, but I suspect there may be ways to achieve efficiencies.



Agree that we can achieve efficiencies, if you read the Withers Report you will find that most of it has fallen by the wayside.  When i was at the College they began implementing it but then for whatever reason they stopped and the College began reverting back.  I suspect their were some people who were not so happy with some of the changes taking place:  4th years living off campus, loss of distinctive RMC uniforms (3b's but for RMC), loss of traditions, etc...

On the point of graduate schools, yes there are lots of great graduate schools out there both offline and online; however, RMC's post-grad programs are narrowly focused towards DND which I believe means they are not without Merit.  The undergraduate studies at RMC mean we can take our best and brightest we produce and stream them into these programs as well. 

The top cadets academically in my class, instead of doing what I did and head to the Infantry School, they remained at RMC and continued their education.  One such individual I know, was a reservist who paid to goto RMC he did his undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering, he then stayed and did his Masters in Nuclear Engineering and following this was accepted as a Rhodes Scholar to Oxford University in the UK.  Thats a solid 6 years that we got out of that guy and some solid research to boot that we probably would not have gotten had he not had the option to come to RMC.

I get it RMC is an institution which looks big and fat and juicy but I see a value in it.  Not least of which it is able to draw on a lot of very talented people who otherwise would probably not be interested in the military but end up giving something back (I am not talking about myself btw I took Political Science aka basket weaving   >  )


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 250 million bucks?!?  Wowza - compare that to the annual operating budget of a CMBG and I now have a target for cuts!
> 
> Can be done at Toronto/Kingston (think Shrivingham)
> 
> UNB and UofC have fine Defence Studies Programs.  Real graduate schools are found all over the country (and on the internet).
> 
> DRDC?  Defence Contractors?
> 
> I'm not arguing that we can go without all these capabilities, but I suspect there may be ways to achieve efficiencies.



When I read the $250 Million tab I was shocked too.... if we took the 800ish cadets at RMC and just sent them to civy U it would only cost $8-10 million (at $10,000 per student per year), so it would seem to be a huge savings... perhaps the college could be the Div HQ......


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Btw to add to my number 250 million, my understanding is a portion of that is also endowment money so it doesn't all come from DND's pocket, should of clarified that initially and the college also is  a lot more then the just the cadet wing.

You also have to account for everything on top of the cadets.  Like I mentioned above a large portion of that money is actually endowment which all universities receives and is directed at funding research.  The budget of the cadet wing is actually quite small hence why it is a Lieutenant Colonel that is Director of Cadets which I mentioned earlier.

The College is more then just the Cadet Wing, much more, hence why it is so expensive.  This is why a 1* oversees it; however, like Infanteer said above do we need all of this extra stuff?  That is what we need to decide.  Their are a 1000 cadets but over 5000 part time students and 600 postgrads along with 200+ staff.  A lot of research is done at  Do we want a Military College that does all this extra stuff or just educates Cadets?


----------



## Strike

Infanteer said:
			
		

> DRDC?  Defence Contractors?



Most of the projects done at RMC are offshoots of, or in partnership with DRDC.  When I was going to school the big projects were biodegradable chaff, ceramic tiles for armoured vehicles and bioremediation of PCB contaminated soil as part of the DEW-line clean up.  And this was just the Chemical Engineering department.  In fact, the Environmental Sciences Group, based at RMC, was the lead agency in charge of managing the DEW-line clean up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Strike said:
			
		

> Most of the projects done at RMC are offshoots of, or in partnership with DRDC.  When I was going to school the big projects were biodegradable chaff, ceramic tiles for armoured vehicles and bioremediation of PCB contaminated soil as part of the DEW-line clean up.  And this was just the Chemical Engineering department.  In fact, the Environmental Sciences Group, based at RMC, was the lead agency in charge of managing the DEW-line clean up.



RMC is also heavily linked with other civi schools as well.  I know the Defence Management, War Studies and Public Administration programs are linked in heavily with Queens and we get a big boost from sharing research with them.  It was because of this partnership that I was able to take a couple of classes at Queens.


----------



## dapaterson

I believe the $250M includes Reg F pay as well.

If we want research scientitsts, we can hire them at lower cost than using military personnel.  Someone who goes from RMC to RMC to Oxford is not a CF officer- they're an academic in uniform.   No experience outside the limestone walls does not serve the individual well, and does not serve the larger CF.

RMC is not going to go away; there is not and will not be political will to close it.  But the programs need to be scrutinized and reduced to the minimum CF requirement (so long, MBA program); the rank structure of the command elements needs to be right-sized (the CF is about 50% over its 1997 target for General and Flag officers); and a return to Withers to judge success/failure and look for further improvements.

The target of 40% ROTP RMC is too high.  DEO is the more cost-effective officer production system.  RMC needs to shrink its intake- which reduces PY demand for support, reduces funding requirements, and reduces infra costs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

My only problem with RMC's graduate programmes - I was a sponsor of graduate students but this was 15+ tears ago, so ... - was that I didn't like the idea of fairly recent RMC graduates returning to RMC to study with the same profs who had taught them in their undergrad programmes. I preferred my people to go elsewhere and be exposed to new, different ideas. I was sponsoring an engineering degree but I was still impressed with the broader range of views in our field (Eng Phys) in other universities.

I did send an officer (Civvy U graduate) to RMC for his Master's and I was pleased with the work he did and the research in which he participated. But, since most of the officers I sponsored (I was in charge of a small, specialized directorate for a very long time) were, themselves RMC grads, I sent most to Civvy Us.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I believe the $250M includes Reg F pay as well.
> 
> If we want research scientitsts, we can hire them at lower cost than using military personnel.  Someone who goes from RMC to RMC to Oxford is not a CF officer- they're an academic in uniform.   No experience outside the limestone walls does not serve the individual well, and does not serve the larger CF.
> 
> RMC is not going to go away; there is not and will not be political will to close it.  But the programs need to be scrutinized and reduced to the minimum CF requirement (so long, MBA program); the rank structure of the command elements needs to be right-sized (the CF is about 50% over its 1997 target for General and Flag officers); and a return to Withers to judge success/failure and look for further improvements.
> 
> The target of 40% ROTP RMC is too high.  DEO is the more cost-effective officer production system.  RMC needs to shrink its intake- which reduces PY demand for support, reduces funding requirements, and reduces infra costs.



I don't know if it is necessarily too high and you are right DEO is definitely the more cost effective solution but now we are getting into a quality vs quantity issue again which is are the officers that goto RMC vs DEO of a higher quality.  Personally, I have heard that argument before and I think it is a bogus one and the institution doesn't make the man.  

I don't agree with your first point though, the person I spoke about paid for his own way through RMC as a RETP student, he then committed to continuing his education which contributed to research projects undertaken by the CF.  I also don't necessarily believe that everyone needs experience "outside the limestone walls," did Steve Jobs ever spend time outside the Limestone Walls?  Nope he had two jobs CEO of Apple and CEO of Pixar, one of which he turned into one of the most profitable companies ever.  Their is a value to having professional academics in uniform (smart people doing smart things) and we only have to look how the corporate world harnesses brain power to see it.

E.R. Campbell the point you just brought up is def a drawback of RMC  graduates returning for post-grad and perhaps we should consider whether it would be better off sending our graduates to other universities to pursue post-grad.


----------



## dapaterson

My critique of "limestone walls" was similar to ERC's complaint of students going to a single school.  Few reputable universities hire professors who do all their degrees in the same schools; intellectual monoculture from sole-source schooling is something to be avoided.  Education should be broadening, not reinforcing institutional bias.  There's the added benefit of exposing more people to the military - sending post-grad students to St Fx, Waterloo and UBC gives the non-military students there exposure to the military.

But I also have concerns about driving military officers from degree to degree to degree without exposing them to and getting them experience in the military.  I don't want brilliant academics permanently entombed in professorships or research chairs, while wearing the uniform.  There is much to be said for real-world experience as well as theory - and the real world of a military officer must include time outside the world of academia.


(And note that Steve Jobs never graduated from university  ;D )


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

hahaha well played Sir!  ;D

I think what i was trying to say is we have certain people that are very good at certain things i.e. Academics.  Do we want to throw them into the meat grinder or develop them more, sort of like how we stream soldiers and officers except this would be a stream setup towards Academia?  

I believe the value of RMC lies in the continuity it provides the officer corps.  You have a significant group of young officers who graduate from our schools every year with a commonality in the way they think and act and I believe this is the real value of the military college.  Could we achieve this more efficiently?


----------



## jeffb

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I believe the value of RMC lies in the continuity it provides the officer corps.  You have a significant group of young officers who graduate from our schools every year with a commonality in the way they think and act and I believe this is the real value of the military college.  Could we achieve this more efficiently?



If RMC delivers this, which I do not think it does, you say that like it is a good thing? Why would we possibly want an officer corps without breadth and depth of experience and knowledge? I work with numerous RMC grads and there is no commonality in how they think and act. Can you honestly tell me that as an infantry officer you think and act the same way the MARS or Logistics officers you went through the college with?


----------



## Infanteer

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I believe the value of RMC lies in the continuity it provides the officer corps.  You have a significant group of young officers who graduate from our schools every year with a commonality in the way they think and act and I believe this is the real value of the military college.  Could we achieve this more efficiently?



Eeeeehhh.  Wrong.

I see no sign of this in the Army - the battalions and regiments to the real grunt work when it comes to socializing officers.


----------



## McG

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The 1* oversee's the entire operation of the College which is much more then just the Cadet Wing.
> 
> 200+ Staff
> 1000+ Full-time students
> *5000+ Part-time students*
> 660 Post-graduates


How many of those 5000 part-time students were doing OPMEs and will no longer exist to justify the general at the top?
... and I'd question anyone using those part-time students as though they were posted strength to justify the rank at the top.  No other CF school has rank inflation based on the size of transient population; RMC does not need it for students who are not even on site.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I see no sign of this in the Army - the battalions and regiments to the real grunt work when it comes to socializing officers.


... and the respective branch/corps schools.


----------



## jeffb

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I believe the value of RMC lies in the continuity it provides the officer corps.  You have a significant group of young officers who graduate from our schools every year with a commonality in the way they think and act and I believe this is the real value of the military college.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Eeeeehhh.  Wrong.
> 
> I see no sign of this in the Army - the battalions and regiments to the real grunt work when it comes to socializing officers.



And thus the value of RMC has been disproved. QED. Shut the doors.  

In all honesty, I think the real value of RMC, and ROTP in the wider sense, is providing an avenue for young Canadians to serve their country while getting a pretty good education without gaining mountains of student debt. The downside of RMC is the "national treasures" crap that gets thrown around. {uggh, I was going to delete that last sentence.} What I was going to add onto it though was that in my experience this only goes to the head of a few graduates. Most RMC grads that I have had the pleasure of working with are no different then DEOs or CEOTPs. (in the good way)


----------



## Journeyman

> The downside of RMC is the "national treasures" crap that gets thrown around.


Oh man, is she _still_ getting passed around Champlain? She's got to be getting pretty long in the tooth by now....

What?  Oh......nevermind......   :-[


----------



## ballz

RMC takes a bunch of people out of high school and locks them into another high school-like environment for 4 more years. In my unit, those of us officers who did not go to RMC have noticed a difference between those that did and didn't based on this, especially when we see new officers show up. For most it only seems to last a year or two after they graduate as they are now living like adults so they mature, some stay locked in the high school mentality for long after they get into the battalion, but that can be said for some percentage of all adults anyway.

All this to say, I don't think anyone should underestimate the immense amount of peer pressure and judgement the young 2Lt must have felt going through this at RMC. IMO, this is both a product of our society which tends to easily victim-blame and emphasizing with the perpetrator ("he held so much promise," "this will affect his career forever," sounds like at least one person is saying the same kind of rhetoric about Mr. Whitehead as they do about that high school quarterback that gets accused of sexual assault), and a product of RMC maintaining a high-school type of environment for what are grown adults.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ballz said:
			
		

> RMC takes a bunch of people out of high school and locks them into another high school-like environment for 4 more years. In my unit, those of us officers who did not go to RMC have noticed a difference between those that did and didn't based on this, especially when we see new officers show up.



I know!  Everyone that goes to RMC is all screwed up, there must be something in the water!  

Stop generalizing!  You don't help the situation not to mention that those other officers are now your regimental brothers.  Sounds to me like a little bit of envy!  Then again, this military is full of backstabbing careerists that will use any crisis to further their own personal agenda.   :  

lets not act as if DEO Pat Platoon in Gagetown is the model of dress and decorum either  :nod:


----------



## ballz

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I know!  Everyone that goes to RMC is all screwed up, there must be something in the water!
> 
> Stop generalizing!  You don't help the situation not to mention that those other officers are now your regimental brothers.  Sounds to me like a little bit of envy!  Then again, this military is full of backstabbing careerists that will use any crisis to further their own personal agenda.   :
> 
> lets not act as if DEO Pat Platoon in Gagetown is the model of dress and decorum either  :nod:



Wow, apparently I hurt your feelings. I assure you I don't envy anyone, I actually don't care too much about RMC right now as I was busy discussing sexual assault. You don't see me running around trying to find out why someone else got extras or put on admin measures or might be charged for this or got jacked up for that or... getting all offended because someone said something I consider negative toward my alma mater.

I didn't go DEO nor did I ever spend more than 2 weeks on PAT Pl, unless you count block leave between Ph III and IV, but I did go to a civilian university. I matured a lot more in 4 years of living on my own without a babysitter at all times making sure I paid my rent and ate my vegetables, realizing that I no longer had to care about fellow classmates being judgemental because I no longer had to spend any time with them if I didn't want to, than I did in the 3 years of high school prior to that. Kind of off topic but the RMC candidates who created this shitstorm for heckling this Lalonde character reminded me of grade 11 or 12s that decided they were going to take the substitute teacher for a hard ride. Coincidence?

As I said, most of the RMC grads take a year or two to realize they no longer eat, sleep, and breathe under the same room as their peers and  quickly stop caring so much about what other people think. For most people though, that year or two happens in their first year or two out of high school, where as for most RMC grads, they spend an extra 4 years in that environment. Most RMC grads I know describe it as such. Is it really that hard to believe?

Anyway, all this tending to your scuffed knee is detracting from my original point and the question of how much this points to the leadership at RMC. This Second-Lieutenant most likely felt immense pressure both for societal reasons as I mentioned (victim-blaming and perpetrator emphasizing) and also because of the environment at RMC (as I have now discussed more than I originally wished to). Just my guess. So how much of that blame lays on RMC leadership? I am unsure. I believe if you treat people like kids they will act like kids, but that seems to be rampant within the Canadian Army at least.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I apologize that I lost my cool for a minute, what I have trouble with though is that I think RMC Cadets (Past, Present and Future) get a bad wrap.  There are a lot of RMC haters out there but it's not going to be the institution that takes the brunt of all this negative publicity, it's going to be the cadets, 90% of whom are good people who are just trying to serve their country.
> 
> I applied to RMC because I wanted to be an officer, not because I wanted to go to RMC.  It was a means to an end for me as it was for most of my peers as well.  People who go to RMC should feel proud when they graduate from the school; however, most don't because when they get to a unit and someone finds out they are a ring knocker .... "oh you're one of those" ... yep that was said to me just this past Friday, by a civilian worker at my unit no less, someone who isn't even a member of the profession of arms.
> 
> The feeling surrounding RMC has always been negative, especially within the military writ-large.  Thus, any chance people get to knock the institution, they do so willingly.  This only has the effect though of hurting our most valuable commodity, our people, most of whom are hardworking officers who slave away doing important but largely thankless jobs. In this regard, the negative aura that surrounds RMC is quite similar to the aura that surrounded the Airborne Regiment prior to it's disbandment.
> 
> It's the perception of elitism, something which is a direct contradiction to Canadian values, which allows this attitude to fester, regardless of whether the place, person or thing in question is truly elite or not.  RMC is certainly not elite and the cadets that go there are no better or worse than their DEO counterparts but there are some advantages to RMC which are for another topic but also ties in to your question about whether the leadership holds some of the blame.
> 
> If we talk about the leadership of RMC, it must first be stated that RMC is controlled by the military.  The Commandant is a 1* General and answers to a 2* General in charge of CDA.  CDA in turn answers to CMP who is a 3* and is soon to be Chris Whitecross, the GO placed in charge of the sexual misconduct TF (a coincidence? maybe).  There are some other players i.e. Alumni, Academia and the Senate but it's a military organization.  The current CDS is an RMC Graduate and was the Commandant of the school at one point so if we are blaming the leadership for this then our entire CoC from the top on down is at fault.
> 
> RMC has been allowed to exist in isolation for a very long time because you've got a substantial portion of the military who think it's a waste of time and money and want it to disappear for good (just like the Army wanted the Airborne to go away) but you've got a minority of officers that went there that is large enough that the institution must be maintained.  These two factions can never come to an agreement on what to do with the place so it's been allowed to exist in stasis mode with the raison-d'etre of the school remaining largely unchanged since the 1960's.



Sandhurst isn't even a year long, involves zero academic credit earning courses, and the graduates are still accused of many of the same negative things as RMC grads.  

The difference between us and them, IMHO, is that the one and only way in to the Officers' Mess in the British Army, apart from some CFRs, is Sandhurst. For all arms and services. It's kind of like the way the US Marines pout everyone through the same basic training together, then they go on to specialize. Although some go through with degrees earned in civvie U, RMAS is a common leadership development experience for 90% of the British Army's officer corps.

IMHO, as a result the British don't tend to suffer from the same inter-mess struggles that you see sometimes in the CF resulting from the RESO, DEO, MilColl (are there others?) matrix. From what I've seen, the US Army has similar issues with the West Point vs. Everyone else dynamic.

We should fix that, somehow.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sandhurst isn't even a year long, involves zero academic credit earning courses, and the graduates are still accused of many of the same negative things as RMC grads.
> 
> The difference between us and them, IMHO, is that the one and only way in to the Officers' Mess in the British Army, apart from some CFRs, is Sandhurst. For all arms and services. It's kind of like the way the US Marines pout everyone through the same basic training together, then they go on to specialize. Although some go through with degrees earned in civvie U, RMAS is a common leadership development experience for 90% of the British Army's officer corps.
> 
> IMHO, as a result the British don't tend to suffer from the same inter-mess struggles that you see sometimes in the CF resulting from the RESO, DEO, MilColl (are there others?) matrix. From what I've seen, the US Army has similar issues with the West Point vs. Everyone else dynamic.
> 
> We should fix that, somehow.



I agree

RMC is also probably one of the only actual "Joint" institutions we have in the CAF, something which many people often forget.

As MCG says though, lets try and keep this on topic.


----------



## PanaEng

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> It's the perception of elitism, something which is a direct contradiction to Canadian values, which allows this attitude to fester, regardless of whether the place, person or thing in question is truly elite or not.  RMC is certainly not elite and the cadets that go there are no better or worse than their DEO counterparts but there are some advantages to RMC which are for another topic but also ties in to your question about whether the leadership holds some of the blame.


I disagree on this a bit. Some, not most, of the cadets do exude this sense of elitism. A small minority but enough to taint the rest untel they get to be known at the new unit.
I know, I went there but as a UTPNCM so somewhat detached pov.


> If we talk about the leadership of RMC, it must first be stated that RMC is controlled by the military.  The Commandant is a 1* General and answers to a 2* General in charge of CDA.  CDA in turn answers to CMP who is a 3* and is soon to be Chris Whitecross, the GO placed in charge of the sexual misconduct TF (a coincidence? maybe).  There are some other players i.e. Alumni, Academia and the Senate but it's a military organization.  The current CDS is an RMC Graduate and was the Commandant of the school at one point so if we are blaming the leadership for this then is our entire CoC from the top on down at fault?
> 
> RMC has been allowed to exist in isolation for a very long time ...



BINGO!  but you forgot to mention the role of the Cadet Wing and the spotty supervision it gets from the Military Wing. And to bring this back on topic, relating to a sexually charged atmosphere. It's been a while and things may have changed for the better a bit but the culture there was definitely suppressive of "blading" your fellow cadets. Loyalty was interpreted to mean to protect your peers and Snrs. 
IMHO, to correct this and help the cadets mature (at the same rate as those in civ U, or DEO - whatever that means) the cadet wing must have better supervision. The Sqn Comd should have more staff - at least a MWO/WO as SSM  and, after 1st yr, the cadets be fully accountable to the code of service.

RMC is a great institution and hopefully these issues can be fixed and its role within the CAF and the gov in general strengthened - but that is another topic.

hopefully that is somewhat coherent - not enough time to review.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PanaEng said:
			
		

> and, after 1st yr, the cadets be fully accountable to the code of service.



They're adults, why wait a whole year? Make them accountable the minute the sign the dotted line.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> They're adults, why wait a whole year? Make them accountable the minute the sign the dotted line.



He may be alluding to the disciplinary process at RMC making use of the Code of College Conduct for breaches of conduct more than the Code of Service Discipline.  (If I'm wrong, correct me.  I did not go to a milcol.)

QR&Os: Volume IV - Appendix 6.1 The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Military Colleges (QR Canmilcols)
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-04/appx-06-01.page


> 3.10 - CODE OF COLLEGE CONDUCT
> 
> (1) The Commandant shall make rules, which shall be known as the Code of College Conduct, governing the cadets at the College.
> 
> (2) The Commandant, or, subject to any limitations imposed by the Commandant, the Director of Cadets, or a military member of the senior staff or a senior cadet who has been authorized in writing by the Commandant, may impose sanctions in accordance with the table to this article against a cadet who breaches any of the rules contained in the Code of College Conduct.
> 
> (3) A record of sanctions imposed on a cadet under this article shall be maintained for the period the cadet is attending a college, but shall be destroyed when the cadet ceases to be a cadet or when the Commandant so directs, whichever first occurs. (25 Mar 80)
> 
> (4) Subject to (5) of this article, sanctions pursuant to this article shall not be imposed against a cadet more than once for the same breach of any of the rules contained in the Code of College Conduct.
> 
> (5) Action taken pursuant to this article against a cadet shall not constitute a bar to any further action under the Code of Service Discipline where the breach of any of the rules contained in the Code of College Conduct constitutes a service offence.
> 
> (M)
> 
> NOTE
> 
> Normally action should not be taken against a cadet, under the Code of Service Discipline, in relation to an incident for which a sanction has been imposed under this article.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> He may be alluding to the disciplinary process at RMC making use of the Code of College Conduct for breaches of conduct more than the Code of Service Discipline.  (If I'm wrong, correct me.  I did not go to a milcol.)



I spoke too soon, thanks.



> (3) A record of sanctions imposed on a cadet under this article shall be maintained for the period the cadet is attending a college, but shall be destroyed when the cadet ceases to be a cadet or when the Commandant so directs, whichever first occurs. (25 Mar 80)


That's an interesting one.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I spoke too soon, thanks.
> That's an interesting one.


No kidding. 

When a private f**ks up during training he/she is subject the Code of Service Discipline.


----------



## PanaEng

exactly.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> He may be alluding to the disciplinary process at RMC making use of the Code of College Conduct for breaches of conduct more than the Code of Service Discipline.  (If I'm wrong, correct me.  I did not go to a milcol.)
> 
> QR&Os: Volume IV - Appendix 6.1 The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Military Colleges (QR Canmilcols)
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-04/appx-06-01.page



This is a weird one. I wonder if it's that the code of conduct replaces the CSD in RMC or whether it is used to augment the CSD for minor crimes not covered in the CSD (fraternization, etc). Saint Mary's university had a student code of conduct while I was there that students could be charged under by the campus security for violating the universities "values", which generally was a sort of "unbecoming" charge and fine.....


----------



## captloadie

It may have more to do with the types of punishments that were handed out at the time in conjuntion with the actual offense.

For instance, when I attended, guys who went code red on a course member during summer training were court martialled.

Falling off a parade for being hung over (there was always a parade after a big party), parking violations, code of conduct breaches, and even minor theft were dealt with using in house summary trials, with the appropriate punishment. One of the reasons for this too is there were almost never monetary fines. It was always some sort of confinement to barracks and extra duty and drill of varying lengths. They would have come off UDR after two years anyway, so maybe that's why there was the special rules for military colleges. 

It also gave the individuals a fresh start when coming into a unit as a newly commissioned officer. No need to erode morale of the troops and confidence in the new leader by it quicky getting out that he was a shyte pump in his first year or two at college.


----------



## yoman

From the Code of College Conduct (otherwise known as CADWIN's at RMC) from when I was there.



> 1.	From time to time, members of CF may demonstrate unacceptable deficiencies in performance or conduct.  For cadets at RMC, these shortcomings usually affect performance in one or more of the four components.  Like those available to the CF, the College has a number of administrative measures to encourage and assist cadets in overcoming their shortcomings and to allow the chain of command to formally monitor their progress.  They are not substitutes for disciplinary action, nor do they preclude it.
> 
> 2.	When considering those administrative measures, the supervisor shall also consider whether disciplinary action is warranted, as the deficiencies associated with the performance or conduct of a member may also constitute an offence under the Code of Service Discipline.  See Chapter 9.
> 
> 3.	Cadets whose performance or conduct in any area is considered to be unsatisfactory may be subject to any of the administrative measures listed below.
> 
> a.	CF Administrative Measures.
> (1)	Verbal Warning (VW);
> (2)	Recorded Warning (RW); and
> (3)	Counselling and Probation (C&P).
> 
> b.	RMC Administrative Measures.
> (1)	sanctions;
> (2)	corrective training;
> (3)	Unsatisfactory Performance Report (UPR);
> (4)	Probation; and
> (5)	removal from ROTP/RETP.
> 
> c.	Release.
> (1)	compulsory;
> (2)   voluntary



So in essence, the CADWIN's augment the CSD.


----------



## McG

ballz said:
			
		

> RMC takes a bunch of people out of high school and locks them into another high school-like environment for 4 more years. In my unit, those of us officers who did not go to RMC have noticed a difference between those that did and didn't based on this, especially when we see new officers show up. For most it only seems to last a year or two after they graduate as they are now living like adults so they mature, some stay locked in the high school mentality for long after they get into the battalion, but that can be said for some percentage of all adults anyway.


So what might be some ways to ameliorate this?

Let's abolish prep-year and first year.  You want to go to RMC?  Show that you have what it takes by passing first year in a civilian university (or completing CEGEP in Quebec).  We demand NCMs demonstrate academic competency by completing university credits before we will look at them for UTPNCM, so why take in a civilian without this threshold?

In one move, we ensure all ROTP entries have had a year to mature outside of highschool, we have greater evidence of academic potential, and we have freed PYs for investment into trained positions.

One could also insert a Sandhurst training model as there would be four months between end of first year "Civi U" and start of ROTP vice the current two months following the end of the high school year.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> So what might be some ways to ameliorate this?
> 
> Let's abolish prep-year and first year.  You want to go to RMC?  Show that you have what it takes by passing first year in a civilian university (or completing CEGEP in Quebec).  We demand NCMs demonstrate academic competency by completing university credits before we will look at them for UTPNCM, so why take in a civilian without this threshold?
> 
> In one move, we ensure all ROTP entries have had a year to mature outside of highschool, we have greater evidence of academic potential, and we have freed PYs for investment into trained positions.
> 
> One could also insert a Sandhurst training model as there would be four months between end of first year "Civi U" and start of ROTP vice the current two months following the end of the high school year.



Having went to civilian university, starting as a NCM, and coming into the reg force as a DEO some thoughts:

- finishing a year of civilian university really proves nothing other than you managed to show up to a few classes, all your midterms, and studied a bit for finals. There are programs that are exceptions, but anyone in a B arts, B science, or B Comm stream can name an entire laundry list of people who literally just show up for midterms and finals and come out with a B+average or higher. RMC would, I assume, at least force students to attend classes and maintain SOME level of basic discipline, whereas civilian U would accomplish none of that.

- UTPNCM would need to complete university credits to prove they can attend university based on their high school grades. For my old unit, the UTPNCMs were people who would have been accepted to university anyways and got into the program. Experiences differ, for sure, but if you are allowed into the program than that's what matters.

- RMC students that I have seen as a DEO succeed and fail at the same rate as any other officer. I've seen exceptional RMC grads and terrible ones, which is the same I can say for DEO and UTPNCM. I've seen DEOs, who were 25+ who were a million times worse than any RMC grad I've seen. The point is that its easy to point at an institution and say there's a problem, but the reality is that the officer you see attending a year of civi U is going to be put into a highly sexualized and slack environment without ANY sort of oversight, learn a million terrible things (drugs, alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, etc) and bring that to RMC with them. I would suggest, which pains me as a DEO, that it's easier to mould a young mind in an environment like RMC than outside of it. With solid leadership, RMC would easily surpass any civi U in terms of developing military leaders.


----------



## captloadie

In the last three years, I have had 9 juniour officers work for me. 1 CFR, 3 DEOs, 3 RMC grads, and 1 ROTP Civy U. They have all had their strengths and weaknesses. The one thing that the RMC grads and the CFR had over the others was an ingrained sense of the military ethos. There wasn't as big of a learning curve on how the military worked, how to use the CoC, dress and deportment, etc. The DEO's are taking longer, except for one, who was in his thirties when he joined and already had plenty of life experience and maturity. To be honest, the most difficult to mentor of all of them is the ROTP civy U grad. But that is more because of the individual, not because they got a free ride through school without the military oversight.

As said before, it takes a mix of the different entry schemes to make the officer corps a diverse group that can provide different perspective to the way the CAF operates.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

One thing that has been overlooked in this thread and others, when discussing the utility of RMC, is the "joint" nature of the school.  People that go to the school develop an extensive network of friends and associates which crosses trade and service boundaries.  There is no other entry program that allows for the development of this sort of network and most military officers will only begin to interact extensively with members from other services when they reach JCSP/are a senior officer.

In a small military where a substantial minority of officers do in fact attend the government's sole military university, people shouldn't under-estimate the ability this network of people with shared experiences has to keep the ball going forward and get stuff done.  To build further on this, not only do cadets at RMC develop a network amongst their peers, they also develop a network with officers a couple of years senior or junior to them in the career stream which strengthens this network further.

RMC is one of the few "Joint" institutions this military has and in a military where the services tend to stovepipe themselves, is this something we want to lose?  The military is a business where people are its most important commodity, with this in mind it must be said that being a successful officer in the military comes down to relationships.  

For these reasons, RMC serves a very important purpose which is why I don't think it should be closed.  Perhaps the program needs to be modified but closing the school is not an option in my mind.  One COA which should be investigated is moving to a Sandhurst Model; however, given the fact that Sandhurst is an Army institution and RMC also needs to accommodate the Air Force and the Navy, I would look at creating a hybrid institution, drawing also from Britannia Naval College, RAF Academy and other Nations Military Colleges, which serves the needs of all three services and not just the Army.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> One thing that has been overlooked in this thread and others, when discussing the utility of RMC, is the "joint" nature of the school.  People that go to the school develop an extensive network of friends and associates which crosses trade and service boundaries.  There is no other entry program that allows for the development of this sort of network and most military officers will only begin to interact extensively with members from other services when they reach JCSP/are a senior officer.
> 
> In a small military where a substantial minority of officers do in fact attend the government's sole military university, people shouldn't under-estimate the ability this network of people with shared experiences has to keep the ball going forward and get stuff done.  To build further on this, not only do cadets at RMC develop a network amongst their peers, they also develop a network with officers a couple of years senior or junior to them in the career stream which strengthens this network further.
> 
> RMC is one of the few "Joint" institutions this military has and in a military where the services tend to stovepipe themselves, is this something we want to lose?  The military is a business where people are its most important commodity, with this in mind it must be said that being a successful officer in the military comes down to relationships.
> 
> For these reasons, RMC serves a very important purpose which is why I don't think it should be closed.  Perhaps the program needs to be modified but closing the school is not an option in my mind.  One COA which should be investigated is moving to a Sandhurst Model; however, given the fact that Sandhurst is an Army institution and RMC also needs to accommodate the Air Force and the Navy, I would look at creating a hybrid institution, drawing also from Britannia Naval College, RAF Academy and other Nations Military Colleges, which serves the needs of all three services and not just the Army.



So, in two words, Ring Knockers  ;D

No malice, just too easy to let by  8)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, in two words, Ring Knockers  ;D
> 
> No malice, just too easy to let by  8)



It is what it is and has always been  8).  People shouldn't under-estimate the power of friendship though.  I keep in frequent contact with many of the folks I went to school with, most of whom aren't even in the Army.  Often our discussion shifts to work related subjects which gets quite interesting given our various backgrounds and different perspectives.  I was in Victoria last summer and my buddy, who is a MARS Officer, offered to give me a guided tour of his frigate on his day off, an offer I graciously accepted.  

I've also found these connections very handy in my present job where I am often required to liaise with different services.  I usually have no trouble getting the information I need as pretty much every unit in the CAF that I walk into, and it doesn't matter which service it is, I run into someone I know who is able to point me in the right direction, some very handy connections to have.


----------



## George Wallace

Sometimes "Networking" is more critical than any other attribute a person has.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sometimes "Networking" is more critical than any other attribute a person has.



Absolutely George!  Like I said, it is what it is.  If people want to put their head in the sand and pretend things are done any other way, well that's their prerogative but they should know that this isn't only applicable to the military.


----------



## Good2Golf

Just for the record, I don't think that officers, mil col or otherwise, hold a monopoly on self-aggrandization/self-importance. Many of us have dealt with shallow, petty and bitter people of all walks of life, and not uniquely from one particular stream.  Interestingly, 30 years ago if one heard the term 'ring knocker' it was usually either an OCTP officer or senior NCM. Nowadays, I rarely, if ever hear a DEO or CEOTP officer utter the phrase.  Although there were notable difference between RMC and RRMC, one of the biggest I believe was that (at Royal Roads) there was a cadre of very experienced and engaged senior NCMs who actually cared about helping young OCdts appreciate aspects of the officer-NCM dynamic.  To this day I maintain a deep respect for (most) NCMs and their critical contribution to the Forces, much of that due to the professionalism and exemplary conduct of senior NCMs at RRMC.  Amongst others, I think (actually pretty certain) that our CDS-designate would agree.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Absolutely George!  Like I said, it is what it is.  If people want to put their head in the sand and pretend things are done any other way, well that's their prerogative but they should know that this isn't only applicable to the military.



It's also a large part of my job  and I use it through a number of organizations that I belong to.

In case it was missed,  the ring knocker comment was in jest.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's also a large part of my job  and I use it through a number of organizations that I belong to.
> 
> In case it was missed,  the ring knocker comment was in jest.



Hahaha no worries!  I may be dense but I still understand sarcasm.... sometimes  ;D


----------



## quadrapiper

Someone made a comment, either on this thread or the service academies one, about much of the "socialization" of young officers happening at the Regiment post-RMC.

While sending packs of pre-RMC OCdts to working units sounds like a likely non-starter, is there anything that might be done _before_ the academic portion of their training that would front-load some of that experience? Copy-paste Sandhurst's program?

Looking at ways to ensure RMC cadets are _young officers seeking a degree_, rather than _college kids who are going to be officers_.

Hell, on that front, perhaps run everyone through VENTURE and equivalents first, send them away to the fleet/regiments/squadrons, then bring them to RMC or through Civvy U as SLts/Lts.


----------



## PuckChaser

The recruiting website says BMOQ is completed after your first year of university. If that's the case, then perhaps BMOQ needs to happen prior to the first year commencing, which would instill some military bearing prior to the pressures of academia. If you don't pass BMOQ, you don't get into ROTP that year.


----------



## captloadie

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The recruiting website says BMOQ is completed after your first year of university. If that's the case, then perhaps BMOQ needs to happen prior to the first year commencing, which would instill some military bearing prior to the pressures of academia. If you don't pass BMOQ, you don't get into ROTP that year.


It used to be that way fpr most OCdts. If you didn't make the cut as basic training, you didn't get to go to school. Many trades, at least those associated to the RCAF, do OJT with the units in the summer. This should also give them a little more insight into how the real world works.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The recruiting website says BMOQ is completed after your first year of university. If that's the case, then perhaps BMOQ needs to happen prior to the first year commencing, which would instill some military bearing prior to the pressures of academia. If you don't pass BMOQ, you don't get into ROTP that year.



My understanding is that there will shortly be an amendment to that ( I don't know if it will be in time for this summer).  As I understand it, ROTP cadets will do a BMOQ spread over two summers - part I before they enter RMC, part 2 in the first summer after.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understanding is that there will shortly be an amendment to that ( I don't know if it will be in time for this summer).  As I understand it, ROTP cadets will do a BMOQ spread over two summers - part I before they enter RMC, part 2 in the first summer after.



Good to see that changing back to how it once was. The next change that needs to be made is the return of NCOs to each squadron to support the Squadron Commander. When I left RMC, there was a minimal NCO presence; something to the tune of an NCO to every 300 OCdts. I believe the return of Sgts and WOs to the squadrons would help the OCdts understand that they are not just "college kids who are going to become officers."


----------



## PuckChaser

NCO/Warrant Officer exposure is important, but where do you find them? I don't think line units are going to give up experienced Snr NCOs and Warrant Officers to go to RMC for 3-4 years to provide guidance. You'd also have to have clear responsibilities for them, otherwise the appearance will be that they're going there as babysitters.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

About the "necessity" of NCMs being imbedded into the cadet wing at military college:

I went to Royal Roads, back when the earth was still cooling. There was a Capt/Lt(N) per Squadron (about 70 cadets). There were 2 Sgts and a MWO as drill staff for 230 cadets. That was the sum total of the non officer Cadets you routinely dealt with in my day (leaving aside the Orderly Room, Clothing stores, and Kitchen staff for a moment)

I do not notice that my respect for NCMs or understanding of their role was ever seriously undermined by this state of affairs. We were, frankly, in awe of the drill staff because they were so superbly disciplined, well turned out and in spite (because of ?) the exacting standards they demanded.of us, I immensely respected them and felt bad when I felt I had let them down. They obviously cared a great deal about us as human beings, but would not accept anything less than perfect from us.

Even the other NCMs we dealt with that I mentioned above were always professional in their dealings with us Cadets. You learn a lot about what true competence looks like in that situation.

In case you were wondering about discipline amongst the cadets- it was maintained by the cadets and it was superb. The CDS designate was a few years ahead of me, and he was a superb model of leadership. As were most others.

My point is that it is not the raw numbers of NCMs that matter- it is the quality of NCMs that you send to RMC that matter. I also firmly believe that the Cadets must be made to hold themselves and each other accountable. It is the only way to learn leadership, properly.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> NCO/Warrant Officer exposure is important, but where do you find them? I don't think line units are going to give up experienced Snr NCOs and Warrant Officers to go to RMC for 3-4 years to provide guidance. You'd also have to have clear responsibilities for them, otherwise the appearance will be that they're going there as babysitters.



If we stopped making everything a command......MPs, HS etc then we probably could.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> NCO/Warrant Officer exposure is important, but where do you find them? I don't think line units are going to give up experienced Snr NCOs and Warrant Officers to go to RMC for 3-4 years to provide guidance. You'd also have to have clear responsibilities for them, otherwise the appearance will be that they're going there as babysitters.



Finding the NCOs is definitely the problem. The Sqn NCOs were removed from RMC sometime between 2005-2007 because units were not willing to give up their experienced NCOs at a time when they were greatly needed for Afghanistan. Since then, I'm not sure RMC has ever made the push to have a more significant contingent of NCOs working with the Cadet Wing. In fact, I think RMC is content with the number of NCOs present and instead the emphasis is being placed on OCdts to police themselves. This is a good thing, which should help these future officers better understand and meet the standards that will be expected of them once they graduate; however, in my opinion, they cannot achieve this by themselves and they will always need the help and guidance of quality NCOs who show them exactly what right looks like. Yes, this can easily be construed as baby sitting, but I liken it to the relationship between Troop Leader and Troop Warrant. Sure, the Tp WO could do the entire job himself, but he knows that is not his role, so instead he will give the young officer the guidance he needs, even going so far as having some private words to set the Tp Ldr on the right path. This is the same type of role that is needed at RMC. 



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...
> I do not notice that my respect for NCMs or understanding of their role was ever seriously undermined by this state of affairs. We were, frankly, in awe of the drill staff because they were so superbly disciplined, well turned out and in spite (because of ?) the exacting standards they demanded.of us, I immensely respected them and felt bad when I felt I had let them down. They obviously cared a great deal about us as human beings, but would not accept anything less than perfect from us.
> ...
> My point is that it is not the raw numbers of NCMs that matter- it is the quality of NCMs that you send to RMC that matter.



I don’t think that the current lack of NCOs at RMC necessarily contributes to a lack of respect or understanding of the NCO role, I just think that it’s a missed opportunity in teaching and mentorship. Having quality NCOs posted to RMC for 3-4 years within the squadrons presents great opportunities for these experienced NCOs to impart their professionalism and experience on these young officers, many of whom are sponges in awe of these NCOs. Also, I think this exposure is great for the NCOs as well; they can go back to their units having a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the officer training system, and as a Tp WO or SSM they will be better prepared to mentor these young officers arriving at the unit.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And I am going to once again re-iterate that NCMs imbedded in the Cadet Wing are not required. Experienced Snr NCMs are a finite resources in the CF.

It used to be that the Cadet Wing was reasonably self-regulating on discipline. That was meddled away, some years ago, in favour of a system where the supposed adults supervised everything the Cadets did. That seems to have turned out real well...

Leaving aside sarcasm- you want people to act like adults? Give them real responsibility, real rewards and real consequences and accept that they will make mistakes- mistakes that will be real lessons to everyone around them. Someone, somewhere seems to be under the misapprehension that creating tough, skilled, combat leaders is a clean, antiseptic process. It is nothing of the sort. There will be a wastage rate. There will be hurt feelings. Lots of people will find out that for the first time in their lives, they do not measure up. Get used to it.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And I am going to once again re-iterate that NCMs embedded in the Cadet Wing are not required. Experienced Snr NCMs are a finite resources in the CF.
> 
> It used to be that the Cadet Wing was reasonably self-regulating on discipline. That was meddled away, some years ago, in favour of a system where the supposed adults supervised everything the Cadets did. That seems to have turned out real well...
> 
> Leaving aside sarcasm- you want people to act like adults? Give them real responsibility, real rewards and real consequences and accept that they will make mistakes- mistakes that will be real lessons to everyone around them. Someone, somewhere seems to be under the misapprehension that creating tough, skilled, combat leaders is a clean, antiseptic process. It is nothing of the sort. There will be a wastage rate. There will be hurt feelings. Lots of people will find out that for the first time in their lives, they do not measure up. Get used to it.


While an admirable goal, I cannot see this happening in this Risk Avoidance culture that rules the CAF these day.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:
			
		

> While an admirable goal, I cannot see this happening in this Risk Avoidance culture that rules the CAF these day.



And it's been that way for over 20 years.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And it's been that way for over 20 years.



Coincidentally, exactly when the wheels started to come off the bus, IMHO (probably said by every generation of military personage, since Moses was a recruit...)


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Coincidentally, exactly when the wheels started to come off the bus, IMHO (probably said by every generation of military personage, since Moses was a recruit...)


So true.
I've been saying to my compatriots that "This is no longer the Navy I joined" quite a bit lately.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The thing of it is... Do the GOFOs truly not understand that it is impossible to have a military that will win you wars and that is risk adverse? I am not saying we should be reckless in how we train and mentor our people, but we do need to accept risk.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:
			
		

> So true.
> I've been saying to my compatriots that "This is no longer the Navy I joined" quite a bit lately.



Same here, but my perception is somewhat affected by the position I'm in.

About 20 years ago we started speaking "bureaucratese" with phrases like "Positive Control" and "maximum supervision" which is just code for "we don't trust anyone". Then when we were discouraged from saying things like "kill the enemy"....because it may have offended some lacy knicker wearing bureaucrat.
Then came along "for your SA". When I first heard it I thought maybe I had to write an essay....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Same here, but my perception is somewhat affected by the position I'm in.
> 
> About 20 years ago we started speaking "bureaucratese" with phrases like "Positive Control" and "maximum supervision" which is just code for "we don't trust anyone". Then when we were discouraged from saying things like "kill the enemy"....because it may have offended some lacy knicker wearing bureaucrat.
> Then came along "for your SA". When I first heard it I thought maybe I had to write an essay....



It can all be traced back to when 'Start Line' gave way to 'Line of Departure' IMHO. 

_We_ start, _they_ depart.  FFS  :


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The thing of it is... Do the GOFOs truly not understand that it is impossible to have a military that will win you wars and that is risk adverse? I am not saying we should be reckless in how we train and mentor our people, but we do need to accept risk.




Oh, _I think_ you're getting closer.

But it's not the GOFOs (not most of them, anyway) who are risk averse ninnies concerned only with media _spin_, they (most of them) understand the business end of war ...

Nor is it the senior civil servants, who can be just as bloody minded as any admiral or general, they run the business end of government (the machinery of government) and they know there are prices to be paid ...

No, it's two groups who are at the root of our problem:

     First, it's the people, often quite young people, who run the "business of politics," of _opinion making_, of "Manufacturing Consent," they are the ones who impose nonsensical _standards_ on a rough and dirty business; and

     Second, it's the people, often in the military themselves, who try to _bureaucratize_ the most human and idiosyncratic of all "businesses," and end up replacing a clear, simple, definition of battle procedure* with 17 f'ing steps!

They're the ones who change simple concepts, like a "start line" to something more complex, like a "line of departure" and who try to bend the nature of military service and leadership into something that suits prevailing (and ever shifting) public norms.


_____
* _Battle procedure:_ the whole process by which a commander does his reconnaissance, makes his appreciation and plan and issues the order that commit his troops to battle.


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, _I think_ you're getting closer.
> 
> But it's not the GOFOs (not most of them, anyway) who are risk averse ninnies concerned only with media _spin_, they (most of them) understand the business end of war ...
> 
> Nor is it the senior civil servants, who can be just as bloody minded as any admiral or general, they run the business end of government (the machinery of government) and they know there are prices to be paid ...
> 
> No, it's two groups who are at the root of our problem:
> 
> First, it's the people, often quite young people, who run the "business of politics," of _opinion making_, of "Manufacturing Consent," they are the ones who impose nonsensical _standards_ on a rough and dirty business; and
> 
> Second, it's the people, often in the military themselves, who try to _bureaucratize_ the most human and idiosyncratic of all "businesses," and end up replacing a clear, simple, definition of battle procedure* with 17 f'ing steps!
> 
> They're the ones who change simple concepts, like a "start line" to something more complex, like a "line of departure" and who try to bend the nature of military service and leadership into something that suits prevailing (and ever shifting) public norms.
> 
> 
> _____
> * _Battle procedure:_ the whole process by which a commander does his reconnaissance, makes his appreciation and plan and issues the order that commit his troops to battle.



Now you've done it. This is one of my pet bugbears - the "if one word is good, twenty words are better" theory of military writing. Perhaps people feel that a simple phrase does not justify their hours of hard work and endless meetings. But let's take a look at a couple of mission statements.

"Capture Vimy Ridge" or "Contribute to the fulfilment of the First Army goals in the Arras Offensive, thereby lessening pressure on the French while forcing a general German withdrawal across the Douai Plain, by conducting a massive artillery preparation coupled with extensive engineer mobility support followed by an assault to prevent the Germans from retaining possession of Vimy Ridge."

How about "Defend Kapyong" or "Prevent the Chinese Forces from advancing on and capturing Seoul, thus endangering the freedom of South Korea by utilizing the natural strength of the Kapyong feature to block the enemy offensive, and forcing them to pause and regroup, thereby creating an opportunity for air power to degrade their effectiveness." 

I recently heard part of a radio program discussing selling ideas. The presenter raised the subject of the elevator theory, that is, to sell an idea you must be able to explain it between the first and second floors on an elevator. He cited a couple of examples of successful pitches in the movie industry. The first was for Aliens, which was pitched as Jaws in space. The second was for a comedy, I believe it was titled Twins, which was sold as the story of twins separated at birth and reunited many years later, with the twins played by Arnold Schwartzenegger and Danny de Vito.

Sorry for the rant, which is a bit off theme.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Now you've done it. This is one of my pet bugbears - the "if one word is good, twenty words are better" theory of military writing.
> ...
> Sorry for the rant, which is a bit off theme.



If you've ever had to deal with the Canadian Defence Academy, parent formation of the Royal Military College of Canada, you would not be apologizing for being off theme.


----------



## daftandbarmy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, _I think_ you're getting closer.
> 
> But it's not the GOFOs (not most of them, anyway) who are risk averse ninnies concerned only with media _spin_, they (most of them) understand the business end of war ...
> 
> Nor is it the senior civil servants, who can be just as bloody minded as any admiral or general, they run the business end of government (the machinery of government) and they know there are prices to be paid ...
> 
> No, it's two groups who are at the root of our problem:
> 
> First, it's the people, often quite young people, who run the "business of politics," of _opinion making_, of "Manufacturing Consent," they are the ones who impose nonsensical _standards_ on a rough and dirty business; and
> 
> Second, it's the people, often in the military themselves, who try to _bureaucratize_ the most human and idiosyncratic of all "businesses," and end up replacing a clear, simple, definition of battle procedure* with 17 f'ing steps!
> 
> They're the ones who change simple concepts, like a "start line" to something more complex, like a "line of departure" and who try to bend the nature of military service and leadership into something that suits prevailing (and ever shifting) public norms.
> 
> 
> _____
> * _Battle procedure:_ the whole process by which a commander does his reconnaissance, makes his appreciation and plan and issues the order that commit his troops to battle.



Sadly, and largely through our own damaged self-image, I believe the military has too often aped the worst of the corporate world.

I'd look at someone who holds the Queen's Commission first, vs. just an MBA, any day.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, _I think_ you're getting closer.
> 
> But it's not the GOFOs (not most of them, anyway) who are risk averse ninnies concerned only with media _spin_, they (most of them) understand the business end of war ...
> 
> Nor is it the senior civil servants, who can be just as bloody minded as any admiral or general, they run the business end of government (the machinery of government) and they know there are prices to be paid ...
> 
> No, it's two groups who are at the root of our problem:
> 
> First, it's the people, often quite young people, who run the "business of politics," of _opinion making_, of "Manufacturing Consent," they are the ones who impose nonsensical _standards_ on a rough and dirty business; and
> 
> Second, it's the people, often in the military themselves, who try to _bureaucratize_ the most human and idiosyncratic of all "businesses," and end up replacing a clear, simple, definition of battle procedure* with 17 f'ing steps!
> 
> They're the ones who change simple concepts, like a "start line" to something more complex, like a "line of departure" and who try to bend the nature of military service and leadership into something that suits prevailing (and ever shifting) public norms.
> 
> 
> _____
> * _Battle procedure:_ the whole process by which a commander does his reconnaissance, makes his appreciation and plan and issues the order that commit his troops to battle.


The Unified Theory of Global Military Inefficiency - well summed up.


----------



## Old Sweat

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The Unified Theory of Global Military Inefficiency - well summed up.



It is personified, and this is not exclusive to the military, the act of confusing achieving efficient in processing the work coming into one's office by moving it through and sending it on as expeditiously as possible, regardless of the chaos it causes downstream, with effective staff work.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dimsum said:
			
		

> tomahawk6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warrants would be a good solution,but one that the USAF wont pursue.They will want to use aircrew to operate UAV's as there will be fewer planes for them to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair, but I meant aircrew Warrants like the US Army.  Or commission (warrant?) those "enlisted" folks into some RPA Warrant Officer stream.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...



A question, based on an observation ...

Back in the 1950s and into the 1960s both the Canadian Army and the RCAF believed that a high school graduate was ready to be trained to become a junior officer ~ troop/platoon commander, or a line pilot. Now, to be fair, we had much bigger forces ~ 20+ large (600 to 1,000+ soldiers), major units, and even more, smaller (100 to 400 soldiers) minor units _in the field force_ and many squadrons of fighters (four wings in Germany, flying F-86 _Sabres_ and several squadrons in Canada flying the CF-100 _Canucks_) and other aircraft.

Turnover of these young line pilots in the RCAF was fairly high, some couldn't qualify, others decided, after a few years of flying, that "civvie street" offered more opportunities. The RCAF, back in the 1950s, was very honest with these young men (they were all men): they were told that the RCAF wanted them to fly and, in some cases to teach others to fly, but the more senior ranks were more or less reserved for a few with good educations and advanced flying, technical and staff training. (My cousin was one of those line pilots ~ after his short service engagement was up he left the RCAF, went back to university, thanks to a generous release benefit, and became a diplomat.)  

The army was much the same but, _I think_, opportunities for OCP (as the army's high school entry plan was called) officers were better and the army did offer some of its officers university educations when circumstances permitted.

We know that, well into the 1960s, the US Army accepted candidates into its Officer Candidate Schools (OCS) with just high school educations and the UK regarded A levels (Grade 12 equivalent) as fully acceptable for entry into officer training well into the and beyond the 1980s.

So, my question, related to the notion that we have too many, too senior officers serving in too many _bloated_ HQs, is: _is a beneficial "split" possible, even desirable, between candidates for careers in the commissioned ranks (who must have university degrees, be bilingual, etc) and for a pool of "fighters," young men and women who will sail, serve in field units and fly for a few years and then leave the CF, perhaps being "forced" out after a short service engagement, because they have filled the roles for which they were needed and engaged?_ Might we decide that we can provide a short (say one year) post secondary academic programme to make our junior officers into the sorts of young _apprentice_ officers we want and then offer the best of that lot full degrees after they have served three to five years in the field? (the ones we keep and educated would then fill the (fewer) staff and command slots.) Could we not have "pilot officers" or even "pilot warrant officers," or   _pilot sergeants_   in the cockpits of some of our helicopters, fighters and transports and in the "driver's seats" of our RPVs?


----------



## dapaterson

The late '60s CAF model was jut that: a large pool of short-service officers who would provide the lower-ranking "fighters" and receive a payout after their nine years of service, who would not have a degree; coupled with a smaller group through ROTP or DEO that would form the basis of a smaller, long-term professional officer corps.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Could we not have "pilot officers" or even "pilot warrant officers," or   _pilot sergeants_   in the cockpits of some of our helicopters, fighters and transports and in the "driver's seats" of our RPVs?


It's not like it hasn't been done before ....


> .... Roughly two-thirds of the 3,000 or so RAF pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain were officers, *the other third being sergeant and flight sergeant pilots* ....


----------



## SupersonicMax

One factor to consider today is the cost of training.  50-60 years ago, it was relatively cheap to train a pilot.  Airplanes were simple, fuel and maintenance were cheap.  And it was quick. To train a CF-18 pilot these days cost upwards of $1.5M.  It would be very fiscally irresponsible to force someone out after 9 years (of which 3 are spent training).  The approach I would push is a 2-stream one:  professionnal officers (university educated, meant to be promoted rather quickly) and the field officers (meant to stay Capt to Major all their career) that would become your technical experts and your corporate knowledge.

This way, people that want to fly for 25 years in the military can: they are not posted to staff units and can keep flying.  I know several pilots that released early because they were posted in a ground job and this wasn't why they joined (and the military lost on their training and experience).


----------



## GR66

Perhaps the concept of a fully degreed officer corps could be slightly modified in concept to include officers deemed capable of earning a degree.  Some officers could be accepted right out of high school but maybe go through an extended (1-year?) combined BMOQ/educational "prep" year.  The CF could provide a general, college/university level general education to the candidates which would give the young officers a solid grounding in topics like military science, international relations, organizational theory, etc., while at the same time confirming for the CF that the young candidates have the basic skills and attitude to make them successful officers.  

This could provide a core of young new officers in the physical prime of their life that have also been "tested" by the CF to ensure that they have the basic skills and attitudes to allow them to succeed in the military (with less of an up-front investment than putting them through a full university degree).  Advancement beyond a certain rank (Captain?) could require completion of a full university degree.  Those non-degreed officers that have proven their excellence and ability to advance could then be offered the opportunity to complete their degree and continue their CF career.  Those not selected to be trained for further promotion would be thanked for their service to their country but not have their contracts extended.  

These young men and women could then take with them to civy world (at an age young enough to take on a new direction) a partial (first year) university education and the benefit of having been thrust into a leadership position much younger than most of their peers.  They could also be a great source of skilled young officers for the Reserves.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I agree with both Maxand GR66. We dump far to much education into most junior officers, far too soon. The implicit message we send is that advancement is more important than mastering your craft.

I wish we would do as Max suggests- let those that want to fly (or sail or ruck up) do so. Those (relatively) few that should advance to become the institutional leaders should have the bulk of the education resources focused on them. There could be a risk of creating bottle necks in units, but I think we could easily manage that going back to actually using the career gate tools we have and not offering IPS conversion to 100 percent of every occupation as we currently do.


----------



## McG

We have CEOTP as the entry plan that matches what is suggested here.  It enrolls without a dergree, but places a promotion ceiling for those who do not get a degree.


----------



## GR66

MCG said:
			
		

> We have CEOTP as the entry plan that matches what is suggested here.  It enrolls without a dergree, but places a promotion ceiling for those who do not get a degree.



The difference is that under CEOTP the officers are still committing to complete their degree during their enrollment period and the CF is still committing to provide the time and support for the officer to complete their degree during their enrollment period.  Would there be an advantage to having young officers that have no plan to stay long term and make a career out of the CF that can focus completely on their trade rather than splitting their focus on their trade and their CEOTP promise to obtain their degree?


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I agree with both Maxand GR66. We dump far to much education into most junior officers, far too soon. The implicit message we send is that advancement is more important than mastering your craft.
> 
> I wish we would do as Max suggests- let those that want to fly (or sail or ruck up) do so. Those (relatively) few that should advance to become the institutional leaders should have the bulk of the education resources focused on them. There could be a risk of creating bottle necks in units, but I think we could easily manage that going back to actually using the career gate tools we have and not offering IPS conversion to 100 percent of every occupation as we currently do.




I agree with all three of you.

That's why this: _"Might we decide that we can provide a short (say one year) post secondary academic programme to make our junior officers into the sorts of young apprentice officers we want and then offer the best of that lot full degrees after they have served three to five years in the field? (the ones we keep and educated would then fill the (fewer) staff and command slots.)"_ was hidded away in the middle of my post.

My thought, unformed, is this:

All general service officer candidates, regardless of age and educational attainment, provided they have, at the bare minimum, university entrance level educational attainments, are sent to one of RMC, in Kinston or CMR in St Jean (there is no language training: Anglophone officers will be sent to English language units, Francophone officers to French language units). At RMC or CMR they undertake, starting in July, an 18 month course that combines basic officer training, (first phase) and a "second phase" special to service course and some academics. (Perhaps some candidates who already have degrees will find the academics too basic ... doesn't matter it is a _common core_ course that everyone takes.) On completion of their 18 month course the candidates are sent on a nice long Christmas leave and then to service schools for "phase three" (begins in January) and then commissioned as 2Lts in, say, June ~ after about 24 months of training. The officers remain as 2Lts until they have competed _all_ professional training and have completed six months in a ship or unit. (That may mean that we need pay raises and several incentive grades for 2Lts, especially for pilots who have very long training programmes.)

The initial engagement for all is seven years: two under training and five in a mix of training and ship/unit employment.

At the end of the _"seven year hitch"_ (yes, I picked that term just so I could make that pun  :nod: ) the CF and the officers take good looks at one another and the CF then decides to whom it will offer intermediate engagements (IE), which includes a requirement for second language training and completion of, at least, a first university degree. About seven years into the IE officers will be "streamed" into _senior_ (high flyer), normal (career ends at about captain/colonel) and _out_ (officer will not, likely, be offered service after 20 years). On the basis of their _streams_ officers will be offered staff training, graduate school and so on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The RAF have a stream Officer trades can enter into called Professional aircrew.  I am not sure exactly how it works but from talking to the ones I have been on crew with, they stay at the lower end of the ranks (the ones I've known were Sqn Leader/Majors) but go on a different pay scale.  Those who go PA may never be a Wing Commander but will become technical and tactical SMEs but continue to get pay increases.  

FWIW I have flown with a handful of RAF aircrew, both NCM and Commissioned.  The NCM types come out of their trg stream as Sgt and my experience is it works well.  Most, if not all, of the Officers I have flown with do not have degrees and they are a talented and capable group.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The RAF have a stream Officer trades can enter into called Professional aircrew.  I am not sure exactly how it works but from talking to the ones I have been on crew with, the stay at the lower end of the ranks but go on a different pay scale.  Those who go PA will never be a Wing Commander but will become technical and tactical SMEs but continue to get pay increases.
> 
> FWIW I have flown with a handful of RAF aircrew, both NCM and Commissioned.  The NCM types come out of their trg stream as Sgt and my experience is it works well.  Most, if not all, of the Officers I have flown with do not have degrees and they are a talented and capable group.



The Australians have something similar to Prof Aircrew, except that it's a posting (essentially demotion to FLT LT but zero admin responsibilities and keep pay at current levels) called Specialist Aircrew.  I've known of a WG CDR who did that, but it's not a career thing.  

RAAF NCM aircrew (FEs, AESOPs primarily) also show up to training as NCM Cadets (Sgt Cadets, essentially) and get their Sgts at the end of training.  Whether that works or not depends on who you ask - the aircrew think it works (dealing with Officers, etc) but some ground crew can get a bit chafed that there are 30-year old Warrant Officers* when it would be much longer before some trades even get considered for WO or even FSgt.  

I'm not really sure what is "better" since I haven't worked with any Pte/Cpl AESOPs yet.  I think it's less the rank and more the personality that will dictate how s/he fits in the crew anyway - I've worked with awesome, professional, mature RAAF LAC Int Ops and awful, immature WOs as well.

* RAAF WO = Our CWO.  RAAF Flight Sergeant = Either our WO or MWO, depending on trade/responsibility.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/about-the-raf/structure/

RAAF and RAF are similar then.  NCM aircrew have 3 ranks only.  A MACr is equal to our CWO.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Further evidence for delaying earning a degree in this article about _Ernst & Young_ removing the degree requirement from their recruiting (most E&Y recruits would be the same sort of people we would look at as potential officers). They (E&Y) say that "Our own internal research of over 400 graduates found that screening students based on academic performance alone was too blunt an approach to recruitment ... it (the company's own, expert research) found no evidence to conclude that previous success in higher education correlated with future success in subsequent professional qualifications undertaken."

I would like to see degree selection deferred until after an officer has a bit of experience. My own, personal, experience suggests that our ideas on what we want to "be," in academic terms ~ what sort of degree we might want to earn ~ will change with age. Certainly, in my case, my ideas at age 27_ish_ were quite different from when I was 17.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I agree with both Maxand GR66. We dump far to much education into most junior officers, far too soon. The implicit message we send is that advancement is more important than mastering your craft.
> 
> I wish we would do as Max suggests- let those that want to fly (or sail or ruck up) do so. Those (relatively) few that should advance to become the institutional leaders should have the bulk of the education resources focused on them. There could be a risk of creating bottle necks in units, but I think we could easily manage that going back to actually using the career gate tools we have and not offering IPS conversion to 100 percent of every occupation as we currently do.



2 years as a platoon commander was the best education I could have ever hoped for.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I had a thought about all those World War Two veterans, who came home after years away- a great number of whom went on to university at 24-30 years old.

That generation, in particular, seemed to drive genius and technological advancement more than any other generation. I wonder if it was at least in part because they went to university later in life and therefore, had a more thoughtful educational experience?


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I had a thought about all those World War Two veterans, who came home after years away- a great number of whom went on to university at 24-30 years old.
> 
> That generation, in particular, seemed to drive genius and technological advancement more than any other generation. I wonder if it was at least in part because they went to university later in life and therefore, had a more thoughtful educational experience?



....And the largest, fastest growth in global economic activity in recorded history. That might have helped too  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That generation, in particular, seemed to drive genius and technological advancement more than any other generation. I wonder if it was at least in part because they went to university later in life and therefore, had a more thoughtful educational experience?



That generation was also, because of the war, introduced to levels of technology and rates of technological advancement that would never have occurred without the conflict driving them. Add to that the training so many had received to operate military equipment, to lead others, and to run all of the camps and institutions. They came home primed to absorb that educational opportunity, especially the numbers of returning service men and women who might otherwise have never considered post-secondary education, and to see directions and possibilities for further progress.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So then, the question is- could the CF's post secondary education budget be better spent on those who are more mature, both in terms of age and years of service? Can we make a convincing case that university education actually is wasted on our average 18 year old?


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would like to see degree selection deferred until after an officer has a bit of experience. My own, personal, experience suggests that our ideas on what we want to "be," in academic terms ~ what sort of degree we might want to earn ~ will change with age. Certainly, in my case, my ideas at age 27_ish_ were quite different from when I was 17.



You have set yourself as a prime example.  I have known a fairly large number of Ptes and Cpls who have left the CAF to go to university.  Most of them remarked that the discipline and work ethic that they acquired in the Service served them better than had they gone to university right out of High School.  These factors, and maturity, gave them better and more disciplined study habits and making them better students.


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So then, the question is- could the CF's post secondary education budget be better spent on those who are more mature, both in terms of age and years of service? Can we make a convincing case that university education actually is wasted on our average 18 year old?



We have discussed this in the past.  One of the comments was that we should be looking the top graduating candidates of our PLQ, 6A and other Leadership Crse and offering them a career path change; the opportunity to go to RMC and get a university Degree on the way to becoming an officer.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?


----------



## George Wallace

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?



Not too much.

It is a concept that we saw appear in the past two decades where a diploma hanging on your office wall was like the Faerie Godmother touching you with her magic wand and POOF you were instantly a leader.


----------



## Blackadder1916

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Further evidence for delaying earning a degree in this article about _Ernst & Young_ removing the degree requirement from their recruiting (most E&Y recruits would be the same sort of people we would look at as potential officers).



Though I would agree with some (most?) of your argument concerning undergraduate education for officers, after reading the linked article, I reached a different conclusion about what Ernst and Young are saying.  I don't think they have decided to start recruiting talent from the non-university/college educated pool - they have just decided that a potential employee's "degree classification" and UCAS points (i.e. their grades) will not be automatic cut-offs in their evaluation.  I think that's what the article is saying, but as it is from their UK operation, it is somewhat confusing as to the meaning.  Not that they (or we) don't understand the Queen's English, it's just that the British educational system (much like their cuisine, drinking warm beer and driving on the wrong side of the road) is incomprehensible to those of us on this side of the pond.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?



Nobody - not even the CAF - makes a connection between having a bachelor's degree and leadership ability.  

http://www.forces.ca/en/page/faq-220


> Why do Officers need university degrees?
> 
> Officers in the Forces are required to think critically, develop innovative solutions to problems and use their intellectual abilities to analyze, plan and make decisions. A university degree is a very good indicator that an applicant has the intellectual skills that Officers need on the job.



However, based on my experience with "some" university graduates, I would dispute that intellect had anything to do with them receiving a degree.


----------



## dapaterson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?



Find a copy of the reoprt to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces from 1997; it's the genesis of the Degreed Officer Corps (recommendation #10).  Many other interesting recomendations in that report that were not implemented (or were implemented and then abandonned).


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So then, the question is- could the CF's post secondary education budget be better spent on those who are more mature, both in terms of age and years of service? Can we make a convincing case that university education actually is wasted on our average 18 year old?



...but that would be counter to what Bland, English and Bercuson argued immediately post-Somalia...that degrees and more of them, is the best way to professionalize a force.

G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Though I would agree with some (most?) of your argument concerning undergraduate education for officers, after reading the linked article, I reached a different conclusion about what Ernst and Young are saying.  I don't think they have decided to start recruiting talent from the non-university/college educated pool - they have just decided that a potential employee's "degree classification" and UCAS points (i.e. their grades) will not be automatic cut-offs in their evaluation.  I think that's what the article is saying, but as it is from their UK operation, it is somewhat confusing as to the meaning.  Not that they (or we) don't understand the Queen's English, it's just that the British educational system (much like their cuisine, drinking warm beer and driving on the wrong side of the road) is incomprehensible to those of us on this side of the pond.




The key "take away" for me is: your undergraduate degree (earned at, roughly, ages 18-22 years) has little predictive value for your _professional_ achievements, even though it may be a prerequisite for some of them. I read the E&Y decision as favouring a wide range of "background" factors and not allowing education, in the form of an undergraduate degree, to be a _"must"_ gate for recruitment. From that I still suggest, after rereading it, that we ought to have a (mainly) degreed officer corps but the degree, itself, ought not to be a prerequisite for commissioning, proper.

(I also wonder, parenthetically, if a "second class" degree ~ say a "pass" BA with a _concentration_ in military arts and leadership ~ could not be earned in two full years, in say six semesters of about 15 weeks each, at RMC or CMR, six or seven years after the first 18 month programme. Maybe many general service officers don't need honours degrees in philosophy, physics or political science.)


----------



## Blackadder1916

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . . From that I still suggest, after rereading it, that we ought to have a (mainly) degreed officer corps but the degree, itself, ought not to be a prerequisite for commissioning, proper.



And that I'm 100% in agreement with.  I, (_and I'm assuming you as well_) started off in the ranks and did not have a degree when I was commissioned.  Of course that was in a time when it was very common for such and even entry level management positions in the private sector could be attained without a degree.  However, times have changed, and whether we like it or not, proof of some intellectual ability a post-secondary educational credential (even if from a cracker jack box) is almost mandatory for any job.



> (I also wonder, parenthetically, if a "second class" degree ~ say a "pass" BA with a _concentration_ in military arts and leadership ~ could not be earned in two full years, in say six semesters of about 15 weeks each, at RMC or CMR, six or seven years after the first 18 month programme. Maybe many general service officers don't need honours degrees in philosophy, physics or political science.)



This, I think is a very good idea, however, I am hesitant about unleashing 19 year old platoon commanders on troops after an initial 18 month programme.  They should have some seasoning before that, if not in the military at least in life (even if it is the rarefied structure of university).  Though it is difficult to compare the educational (and military) systems of European countries with our own, perhaps something along the lines of the French Army's officer school would work.  As I understand (and I may be wrong), French Army officer candidates enter Ste Cyr with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree and on completion of the programme leave with a master's.  They also have an option for those without an undergraduate degree (e.g. mainly those from the ranks) to complete an accelerated bachelor's degree as you suggested.  Their navy and air force academy graduates still leave with a bachelors.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am not necessarily arguing against a degreed officer corps. I am just questioning when we deliver the degree.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And that I'm 100% in agreement with.  I, (_and I'm assuming you as well_) started off in the ranks and did not a degree when I was commissioned.  Of course that was in a time when it was very common for such and even entry level management positions in the private sector could be attained without a degree.  However, times have changed, and whether we like it or not, proof of some intellectual ability a post-secondary educational credential (even if from a cracker jack box) is almost mandatory for any job.
> 
> This, I think is a very good idea, however,_ I am hesitant about unleashing 19 year old platoon commanders on troops after an initial 18 month programme_.  They should have some seasoning before that, if not in the military at least in life (even if it is the rarefied structure of university).  Though it is difficult to compare the educational (and military) systems of European countries with our own, perhaps something along the lines of the French Army's officer school would work.  As I understand (and I may be wrong), French Army officer candidates enter Ste Cyr with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree and on completion of the programme leave with a master's.  They also have an option for those without an undergraduate degree (e.g. mainly those from the ranks) to complete an accelerated bachelor's degree as you suggested.  Their navy and air force academy graduates still leave with a bachelors.




Please go back to my two separate posts that started this tangent. In the 1950s and '60s we had a lot of 19 (well, mostly 20) year old kids commanding platoons ~ some, of course, were dunderheads, just like some platoon commanders fresh out of RMC, but many, indeed most, did just fine. Young men, boys really, could apply for OCP at 18, fresh out of high school, and they could be 2Lts, commanding platoons, just over a year or so later if they did Phases 1, 2, 3 and the Young Officers' Tactics Course and the Platoon Commander's Course (Phase 4) one right after the other ... bang, bang, bang, as it were. (It was about the same, maybe a bit longer, for young jet fighter pilots, too: enrol at 18 and be in the cockpit of a F-86 or CF-100 two years later.)

The British Army's _Commissioning Course_ is, _I believe_, 44 weeks at Sandhurst, followed by a 16 week Platoon Commander's Course, which amounts to about 15 months.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am not necessarily arguing against a degreed officer corps. I am just questioning when we deliver the degree.



I,on the other hand, do question the degreed officer corps.  Senior officers?  OK, I can go for that.  Even provide limited windows to get undegreed Jr Officers into Snr officerdom.

And I'd keep ROTP, but abandon running a military university - anything we need, we can get better and cheaper from the existing university system instead of building our own.  RMC should be a Sandhurst style school - officer training, not education.  If we want to give Masters degrees for senior programs like JCSP or NSP, do it in conjunction with a university with recognized expertise in the field.

Of course, this all presupposes a radical adjustment to the size of the officer corps.  We don't need 25% of the Regular Force to be officers (including OCdts).  We don't need over 5000 senior officers in a Regular Force that can sustain (only just) 2000 soldiers in the field.

Indeed, the same direction that ordered a degreed officer crops also ordered that the CAF have fewer than 65 General and Flag Officers, and ordered a review to improve the ratios of officers to NCMs, and senior NCMs to junior NCMs.  But we only have one institution with a vested interest - and so the degreed officer corps nonsense flourishes, while fixing the structure does not.


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am not necessarily arguing against a degreed officer corps. I am just questioning when we deliver the degree.




 :ditto:  just to be clear: I'm fine with a degreed officer corps, I understand that some officers will need, or the CF will benefit from them having, multiple degrees. But, I don't think a degree is needed as a prerequisite for commissioning and I wonder if some (many?) officers would not benefit (enough for the military's needs, anyway) from a  broad "general" military arts degree, something akin to the old "pass BA" (which could be completed in three years) or the British _ordinary_ degree, which also could be done in three.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You have set yourself as a prime example.  I have known a fairly large number of Ptes and Cpls who have left the CAF to go to university.  Most of them remarked that the discipline and work ethic that they acquired in the Service served them better than had they gone to university right out of High School.  These factors, and maturity, gave them better and more disciplined study habits and making them better students.



I'll also add to that a university education that is more focused.  Adult learners, generally speakin
g, have a set, well-defined goal and motivators when they enter post-secondary studies after being in the workforce.  I know this is the case for me, currently working towards a B. Ed in Adult Education.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I have to agree with what you said above.  The discipline 'get the task' done mindset the military instills helps you to not put off coursework that needs to get done, the study habits from taking multiple training courses helps to ensure best use of time, etc.  

The Crown only pays for my coursing upon complete of the courses I am taking, and only to the amount supported in my ILP.  If I decided to screw the pooch and not pass my courses this semester, I'd be out my own $$ and have no credits towards my degree.  I believe this 'pay up front' policy is an effective way of eliminating those people who don't have motivation and an identified, defined goal.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I am hesitant about unleashing 19 year old platoon commanders on troops after an initial 18 month programme.



In the fall of 1982 I arrived at the Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School (CFOCS) in Chilliwack, BC. Some of us had left university before graduating, for various reasons. Others were fresh high school graduates from that spring, while others were being commissioned from the ranks on different programs (having held ranks up to Sergeant). There was a mix of prior Res and Reg F service along with long-haired civvies (literally). 

We completed our basic Officer Training Course (BOTC) before Christmas, and those pursuing careers in the Combat Arms (Inf, Armd, Arty) found ourselves in Gagetown on the second day of January. We then took three consecutive Phase training courses to graduate in August 1983.

Along the way we picked up some folks that were waiting, for whatever reason, for each course, and in the summer the ROTP (civ and mil) rolled in for Phase IV. The guys off the street (OCTP, etc) discovered very quickly that the low level of investment the Reg F had in us meant that we could, and would, be cast aside without mercy. The man eating truck was a fact of life on Ph II and III. When the ROTP crowd rolled in, they had a very different attitude, blatantly acknowledging that failure in Ph IV often meant a chance to try a different trade (short of a critical ethical failure).

Once we hit the battalion, the difference between the OCTP guys without degrees and *some of* the ROTP became more distinct. Some ROTP saw the battalion as just a stepping stone forward, they put more energy into their Officer Professional Development Program (PDP) exams than in commanding their platoons. They knew they were already protected as having greater envisioned "potential" by benefit of the ROTP. Those few, call them the bad applies or outliers if you want, were also the ones who would dismiss NCO input more readily.

After only an "initial 18 *12* month programme" of BOTC and Phase training, there was no difference in the readiness of those young officers to lead their platoons. ROTC did not provide any noticeable "crucible" for leadership training that showed then more prepared for Ph IV or for the battalion. Some of them may have been stellar RMC/RRMC/CMR cadets, but that didn't necessarily mean they made even above average officers on the ground in front of soldiers.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Nobody - not even the CAF - makes a connection between having a bachelor's degree and leadership ability.
> 
> http://www.forces.ca/en/page/faq-220
> However, based on my experience with "some" university graduates, I would dispute that intellect had anything to do with them receiving a degree.



It's good for any organization to draw leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds to diversify risk, and make sure that everyone isn't 'thinking alike':

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

 George S. Patton


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> So, my question, related to the notion that we have too many, too senior officers serving in too many _bloated_ HQs, is: _is a beneficial "split" possible, even desirable, between candidates for careers in the commissioned ranks (who must have university degrees, be bilingual, etc) and for a pool of "fighters," young men and women who will sail, serve in field units and fly for a few years and then leave the CF, perhaps being "forced" out after a short service engagement, because they have filled the roles for which they were needed and engaged?_ Might we decide that we can provide a short (say one year) post secondary academic programme to make our junior officers into the sorts of young _apprentice_ officers we want and then offer the best of that lot full degrees after they have served three to five years in the field? (the ones we keep and educated would then fill the (fewer) staff and command slots.) Could we not have "pilot officers" or even "pilot warrant officers," or   _pilot sergeants_   in the cockpits of some of our helicopters, fighters and transports and in the "driver's seats" of our RPVs?



Ted,  aren't there natural dividing lines between the Subaltern, Field Officers and Generals?

Why not: "Lieutenants may degree, Captains should degree, Majors must degree".

Captains and lower are, and traditionally have been, your fighting officers.  Majors, Lt Cols and Cols were you regimental officers. Brigadiers and up, by definition, your General Officers.

Edit: it would marry up with the psc requirement.


----------



## Old Sweat

Re Michael O'Leary's post, it parallels my experience as a 20-year-old gunner promoted to officer cadet and sent on Army Officer Candidate Training in September 1960. One should never forget that all officers cadets regardless of entry programme had to meet the same entry standards in terms of intelligence tests and selection boards. [The average age of our course was six months older than our ROTP compatriots, but that is another story.] We were second class citizens as was evident when we were not allowed to participate in the summer officer cadet sports day and our OCP class was the only one without formal recognition of the top student with a trophy or award. Ok, sore point, I led our course and did get an interview with the commandant as a reward.

When we reached our regiments, we found there was little difference in standard, except that we were second lieutenants and the ROTP were lieutenants except for a couple who did not have a degree. Honking big difference in pay by the way. In terms of performance, little if any difference except for the approximate 50% of the ROTP who made no bones about taking the program for the "free" degree and had no intention of serving a day beyond their three year commitment as a commissioned officer. They were largely idle wastes of rations. There was enough dissatisfaction with the inequalities and general favouritism towards ROTP at the time, that those who intended to make a career of it agreed that the system was broken. By the seventies the course standards, etc were the same and in fact the OCTP and ROTP candidates were integrated.

So what? Junior officers are pretty much a work in progress and formal education is only one factor in determining how well these young men and women will do when the stress fairy waves her magic wand all of a sudden. As a second lieutenant I was faced by two sudden challenges. The first was a few months after commissioning when I had to resolve a domestic situation involving alcohol, adultery and a loaded firearm in the hands of the aggrieved husband. The second involved the premature detonation of a live round 15 metres out of the muzzle of a field gun that wounded six of my soldiers. I wasn't perfect, but both turned out well. 

Back then the majority consensus of officers through both streams was that the system would work better if selection to pursue a degree came after a few years service.


----------



## dimsum

I've been following this with interest, but was wondering how you'd sell such a program to:

a) the candidate, and (I'd say more importantly) 
b) the candidate's parents.

I agree that not every officer has to have a degree, and that a degree should come a few years later when said officer is more mature.  However,  for good or bad, going to university at age 18 is now considered "normal", and I'd suspect that for many looking that route (and their parents), waiting until 27-30 to get their B.A. would be seen as a waste of their years before jobs/parenthood get in the mix.  

The other hiccup I could see is how would these officers get their degrees?  Would they get pulled out for 4 years to go to school as a posting?  Do they have to do it all DL or part-time?  As an OCdt without experience, pulling someone out for 4 years wouldn't affect the unit much, but pulling out experienced Capts might.

Again, I agree with the general idea and having RMC like Sandhurst vice a separate degree-granting school (Queens is next door...), but I'm not sure how it could be done cleanly.

 :2c:

Also, maybe a split (or a merge with another thread - I thought we had something similar to this before)?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I've been watching this topic with interest.

I think too if we moved away from degrees for subalterns, you might find the debacle that is UTPNCM disappear.

Those from the ranks that want to commission would have to WANT to commission entirely separately from wanting to obtain a degree on the Crown's dime. If they are willing to complete a form of OCS and serve 3-5 years as a Subaltern, perhaps they qualify for ROTP.

And hell; maybe those who want to commission, but run from having to do formal academic training to do it might be swayed otherwise.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Ostrozac

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I've been watching this topic with interest.
> 
> I think too if we moved away from degrees for subalterns, you might find the debacle that is UTPNCM disappear.



Debacle? I've seen a large number of very successful officers produced through UTPNCM -- up to and including senior officers who have gone to CFC in Toronto (I've never seen a CFR, by comparison, get to CFC). It had a reputation for being the most competitive commissioning plan and therefore producing officers of the highest overall quality.

Did they do something to break the program recently?


----------



## GAP

Quote from: rmc_wannabe on Today at 19:46:32


> I've been watching this topic with interest.
> 
> I think too if we moved away from degrees for subalterns, you might find the debacle that is UTPNCM disappear.



 I don't think you know what you are talking about.....UTPNCM candidates are already a proven commodity in respect to the CF, rather than some dude wandering in off the street on a maybe....


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Perhaps I should have used better language?  :whiteflag:

Make UTPNCM more streamlined?

Want to serve as an junior officer without getting a degree? Officer Candidate TC.

Want to serve as an officer and get a degree? UTPNCM

Shown potential as an NCM and should be an officer? CFR.

I'll go back to my corner


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why not: "Lieutenants may degree, Captains should degree, Majors must degree".


That is CEOTP.  No promotion to major without completing that degree.  Captains get extra points at the promotion board for having that degree.  If a captain without a degree gets merited high enough for promotion, that captain becomes a priority for an ATL posting to complete the dergree.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> That is CEOTP.  No promotion to major without completing that degree.  Captains get extra points at the promotion board for having that degree.  If a captain without a degree gets merited high enough for promotion, that captain becomes a priority for an ATL posting to complete the dergree.



If that's the case, how is it managed just now?  I know universities run co-op programmes - and learning can be discontinuous.


----------



## McG

Onus is on the officer to continue making progress toward earning a degree.
The BMAS from RMC is encouraged for officers in this program, but they can enroll in part-time and distance studies from an accredited Canadian university.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've been following this with interest, but was wondering how you'd sell such a program to:
> 
> a) the candidate, and (I'd say more importantly)
> b) the candidate's parents.
> 
> I agree that not every officer has to have a degree, and that a degree should come a few years later when said officer is more mature.  However,  for good or bad, going to university at age 18 is now considered "normal", and I'd suspect that for many looking that route (and their parents), waiting until 27-30 to get their B.A. would be seen as a waste of their years before jobs/parenthood get in the mix.
> 
> The other hiccup I could see is how would these officers get their degrees?  Would they get pulled out for 4 years to go to school as a posting?  Do they have to do it all DL or part-time?  As an OCdt without experience, pulling someone out for 4 years wouldn't affect the unit much, but pulling out experienced Capts might.
> 
> Again, _I agree with the general idea and having RMC like Sandhurst vice a separate degree-granting school (Queens is next door...), but I'm not sure how it could be done cleanly._
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Also, maybe a split (or a merge with another thread - I thought we had something similar to this before)?




Let's deal only with the officers who stay on in the CF after their initial _"seven year hitch"_ which includes the 18th month course ar RMC or CMR.

    (By the way, that 18 month course (about 17 months (75 weeks) of actual training) includes what amounts to a first year university programme that will be recognized by Canadian civilian universities: mathematics; English and French;
     (_military_) history; psychology (_military leadership_); _strategy_ (geography and economics) and a general (_military_) science course ~ introduction to electronics, weapons and mobility.)

Both RMC and CMR would offer, in English and French, respectively:

     1. A general or "pass" BA in _Military Arts and Leadership_ ~ a two year (six semester) non-honours course;

     2. A general or "pass" BA in _Defence Management and Military Administration_ ~ also a two year non-honours course;

         (Courses 1 and 2 might be well suited for many general service officers in a wide range of occupations.)

     3. An Honours BA in _Military Arts and Leadership_ with concentrations in _military history_ or _strategic studies_;

     4. An honours BA in _Military Logistics and Management_;

     5. An BEng in _Logistical Engineering_; and

     6. A range of specialized BEng programmes in e.g. _Naval Combat Systems Engineering_, _Military (Combat) Engineering_, and _Aeronautical Engineering_.

    (All of programmes 3 through 6 could lead suitable candidates to graduate degree programmes at RMC or any civilian university; all would be full, four year degree programmes: the first year done in the initial 18 month course and
     three full academic years done at CMR or RMC as full time students, with both being full blown _tri-mester_ universities. Programme 6, BEng _might_ only be available at RMC. RMC _might_ have a small, excellent graduate school
     offering degrees in a very few, very specialized programmes that are not duplicated in any other North American university.)

Part of the release benefit package for officers who are not selected (or did not apply) to serve after their initial _"seven year hitch"_ would include support (administrative and financial) to undertake studies in Canadian colleges or universities.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another wrench into the mix - the Conservatives are promising to make CMR a university again.


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Another wrench into the mix - the Conservatives are promising to make CMR a university again.


Oh good.  Yet another priority to take PYs away from the field force.


----------



## dapaterson

As long as we don't change ROTP output (already too high) this could be feasible - shift production from RMC to CMR.  Then we can dispose of some older infrastructure in Kingston.

Instead, of course, we'll create another huge barnacle on the hull of _HMCS Canadian Forces_.


----------



## Old Sweat

Just returned from a meeting in the RMC Senior Staff Mess to help reps from a certain English-speaking regular infantry regiment formulate their plan for a volume of their military history covering 1950 to 2001. Access to the mess was made slightly difficult by construction on the RMC grounds. Two of the others attendees noted there also was construction in Fort Frontenanc and they wondered if the CAF's budget troubles were overstated. I suggested that the forces just might be spending money on the wrong things.


----------



## dapaterson

Much of the current construction traces its roots to announcements in July by the fderal government, _totally unrelated to the ongoing election_, of millions of dollars for infra work over the next 2 years.


----------



## PuckChaser

Construction funding announcements in July and work being started now would make it the fastest PWGSC contracting on infrastructure ever. I'm willing to bet these projects were funded years ago, and either simply re-released as press announcements or are unrelated to the PRes armoury restorations.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Construction funding announcements in July and work being started now would make it the fastest PWGSC contracting on infrastructure ever. I'm willing to bet these projects were funded years ago, and either simply re-released as press announcements or are unrelated to the PRes armoury restorations.


Yep.  So as to not take this thread too far off topic, see here:  The CF as a re-election prop (a split thread)


----------



## Navy_Pete

Throw it out there that for those of us outside of combat arms, having a degree in a relevant field means you are almost immediately employable in some form while waiting for the various phase training, which can have wait times of 6 months or more between them.  Coming in right out of high school would make you almost useless, and as it is for naval technical officers it can take four years or longer to get through the current training scheme with a degree, so doing it later on in life would mean you'd just be doing it at a much higher pay grade.

You still need to have to demonstrate leadership to really strive and succeed, but there is still lots of roles in specialists trades for those that are very good at the technical aspects of their jobs but not so much at dealing with people.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> You still need to have to demonstrate leadership to really strive and succeed, but there is still lots of roles in specialists trades for *those that are very good at the technical aspects of their jobs but not so much at dealing with people.*



Officers lead.  If they're not good with people, they should not be serving as officers.

Too many technical occupations have built Ottawa-centric communities of practice.  Hint: If over half your trade is in NDHQ, it should probably be civilianized.


----------



## blacktriangle

Considering many successful people manage to work their way through an undergrad education without CAF subsidization, I'm curious why we need ROTP at all. Wouldn't it be better to have new officers that have demonstrated sufficient dedication and planning to fund their own degree? That way we'd get them at 21/22 (a little more mature than 17-18) and they could immediately be put through their training. It might make for more well rounded candidates as well... 

Once they have put some time in (and showed they can perform) I am not against subsidizing Master's level programs (MPA,MBA, MEng etc) at RMC or a civilian school (would be my preference)

So why so much focus on ROTP vs DEO? Are we worried we won't be able to recruit anyone? Or is ROTP/RMC just sacred ground for the CAF? I think I know the true answer, but I am curious to hear what others think.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Considering many successful people manage to work their way through an undergrad education without CAF subsidization, I'm curious why we need ROTP at all. Wouldn't it be better to have new officers that have demonstrated sufficient dedication and planning to fund their own degree? That way we'd get them at 21/22 (a little more mature than 17-18) and they could immediately be put through their training. It might make for more well rounded candidates as well...
> 
> Once they have put some time in (and showed they can perform) I am not against subsidizing Master's level programs (MPA,MBA, MEng etc) at RMC or a civilian school (would be my preference)
> 
> So why so much focus on ROTP vs DEO? Are we worried we won't be able to recruit anyone? Or is ROTP/RMC just sacred ground for the CAF? I think I know the true answer, but I am curious to hear what others think.




It's hard to disagree with this article IMHO. Degree granting Military colleges are a 'colonial anachronism', pretty much:

Let’s abolish West Point: Military academies serve no one, squander millions of tax dollars 

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/05/lets_abolish_west_point_military_academies_serve_no_one_squander_millions_of_tax_dollars/

Many pundits have suggested that the Republicans’ midterm gains were fueled by discontent not merely with the president or with the (improving) state of the economy, but with government in general and the need to fund its programs with taxes.  Indeed, the Republican Party of recent decades, inspired by Ronald Reagan’s exhortation to “starve the [government] beast,” has been anti-tax and anti-government. Government programs, as many of their thinkers note, primarily exist to perpetuate their own existence. At the very least, they have to justify that existence.



In the spirit of hands across the aisle, I’d like to suggest that the first thing the new Republican majority devote itself to is not, say, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but to converting the four hugely expensive and underproductive U.S. service academies (Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard) — taxpayer-funded undergraduate institutions whose products all become officers in the military — to more modest and functional schools for short-term military training programs, as the British have repurposed Sandhurst.

Training is something the military does—education, certainly, is not. Indeed, undergraduate education of officers has already largely been outsourced, since most new officers come from the much cheaper Reserve Officer Training Corps programs at civilian universities (at one-quarter the cost of the academies), or from the several months of Officer Training Corps (one-eighth the cost) that follows either an enlisted career, or college. By all standards, these officers are just as good as those who come from the service academies, which now produce under 20 percent of U.S. officers.

The service academies once had a purpose: when they were founded in the 19th century (the Air Force split off from Army after World War II), college was classics and religion for gentlemen, so it made sense to have technical training institutes for people who would be in charge of increasingly technical warfare.  All the service academies have now to justify their cost and their pretensions, it seems, is their once-illustrious history, and the club of “tradition,” which they wield mercilessly against students who dare question why things are as they are.

Who benefits from these strange historical holdovers? Not the taxpayers who fund them. The service academies are the vanity projects of the brass who went there. Their interest is in looking good (it’s good for their careers) and in keeping the tax dollars flowing. All official information taxpayers get about the service academies comes from the brass who run them and who use them as their private country clubs — at taxpayer expense. Military subordinates (which includes the students) are legally unable to offer conflicting views. The result is that the service academies are feel-good hype factories that operate with virtually no accountability and little oversight, the very definition of government bloat on autopilot.

Oh, yes—there’s one more group of people who defend these places to the death: the parents of the young military members who attend them. Why wouldn’t they?  Having their children admitted is a government-sponsored guarantee of a golden ticket to life: college at taxpayer expense with no student debts, the highest salary of any set of graduates, and guaranteed employment and (no-Obamacare-necessary) health benefits for at least five years, frequently well beyond. And no, most people in the military aren’t remotely likely to be shot at.

The service academies are poster boys of the out-of-control entitlement programs Republicans say they hate. So I say to the new Republican Senate majority and the strengthened House majority: Welcome to Washington, and get to work.

Yet they are alluring, and seem on the surface to offer a better alternative to other colleges that gave in long ago to the idea of keeping students happy with as few requirements as possible. By contrast, the mission statement for the Naval Academy, whose graduates cost taxpayers about half a million dollars each and who become officers in the Navy and Marine Corps — and where I am in my 28th year as a professor — makes for stirring reading. So too do the mission statements of the other service academies, all government programs with one purpose only, to graduate military officers: West Point for Army, Colorado Springs for the Air Force, and New London for the Coast Guard. Navy’s mission statement speaks—in contrast to almost all other colleges in the U.S.– of purpose. The mission of the Naval Academy is “to develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty,” How inspiring these ideals are!

There’s one problem. Nobody ever asks if we achieve these goals. I know after 28 years that we don’t.

The service academies in the new millennium are little more than military Disneylands for tourists. They are also cash cows for the brass who send their own children there at taxpayer expense: the children of multiple current and past administrators have gotten this taxpayer-supported present, which looks to me like (illegal) nepotism. And far from “imbu[ing] them with the highest ideals,” the service academies are in fact the graveyards of the ideals of students who come looking for something that transcends the watery values of secular humanism that are the best many other institutions can offer.

Conservatives bash welfare and food stamps, but in fact the service academies are the most generous government giveaway going. But just try, as I did, finding out who gives away the benefits or even on what basis. That’s information the taxpayers can’t know. Three rounds of FOIA requests to see who admits and why have hit the brick wall of the brass refusing to answer. The military prides itself on accountability, but the admissions office of Navy wants to give away the taxpayers’ money with no accountability whatsoever. Why did a football player get in, while the high-flyer woman who led her class was rejected? They informed me it was because admitted candidates showed “leadership.” What’s that?  How was this measured? (We don’t even require an interview to gauge charisma, which the vast majority of our students lack.) The message from the brass is clear:funnel the money to us and don’t ask questions.

Ever tried to debate with one of the beneficiaries of this taxpayer-supported largesse? I have, on NPR, when I was informed by a proud and defiant recipient of this government give-away that the service academies were a “national treasure”—not, coincidentally, one that enriched him personally. Service academy officers aren’t better—but almost invariably, they’re convinced they are: the administrators assure midshipmen repeatedly that they are “the best and the brightest” and are “held to a higher standard.”  So it’s not coincidence that service academy officers have a negative reputation in the military as smug ring-knockers. They didn’t have to work their way through college..

And they’re hardly, on average, the “best and the brightest.” In fact more than a quarter of the class has SAT scores below 600, and our average is lower than the nearby state school University of Maryland. Twenty percent of our class comes through a taxpayer-supported remedial 13th grade (another almost $50,000 per student for taxpayers). They fill our remedial courses (I am teaching some of these this semester, as a full professor)—a second try at getting them up to college level.  The top 10 percent are impressive. But they are the exceptions rather than the rule, and almost all (I know from talking to them) are deeply disillusioned by the Academy and by what they found there.

But we’re ferociously selective, right?  The Naval Academy has highly creative definitions of what constitutes an applicant, and applying these makes us more selective, on paper, than all but a handful of U.S. schools—and boosts our beauty quotient in the so-important U.S. News and World Report rankings. In fact we count all 7,500 applicants to a week-long summer program for 11th graders, that enrolls 2,500, as Naval Academy applicants, as well as anybody who fills out enough information to create a candidate number. It was just last year we stopped counting the 3,000 applicants to ROTC programs at civilian schools as Naval Academy applicants (say what?) when a reporter discovered it, but when I was on the admissions board for a year a decade ago we considered nothing close to the 20,000 applicants they claim. It was actually fewer than 5,000 candidates for 1,800 admits. Is this an outright lie to scam taxpayers, or simple unfamiliarity with the legal requirements of the Department of Education as to what constitutes an “applicant”?


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Officers lead.  If they're not good with people, they should not be serving as officers.
> 
> Too many technical occupations have built Ottawa-centric communities of practice.  Hint: If over half your trade is in NDHQ, it should probably be civilianized.



I didn't say no leadership; just not natural leaders.  As well, you can have people that you would never follow into combat be fantastic at leading  a large project team to deliver a new capability, so it's about using peoples strengths rather then forcing them into a mold. And having actual practical experience is a huge asset for the engineer types for getting things that will actually work in the real world.  

You could decentralize ADM(Mat), but it kind of makes sense given the amount of common equipment and push for interoperations to have everyone co located.  Doesn't have to be in the NCR, but given the dollar value of the projects, makes it much easier when you have to sell it up the govt food chain.

Given how reliant modern military forces are on equipment, you need a lot more on the technical backend and logistics side to keep that all functioning.  That requires people with a lot of different skill sets to get things that will actually work when you need them too and keep them working.  Considering the massive handicap placed on us by our own governmental rules, really kind of impressive anyone has any working kit anywhere.

Getting back to the point though, making blanket statements about all trades and degrees is pretty silly given the massive range of officer trades employed in the forces.  There are a lot of pointy end trades where a degree after the fact may make sense (although then once someone is proved competent, you then lose them for several years for a BA), and there are others where it makes no sense to not have it as a prereq, but can easily be met with standard civilian degrees and maybe some delta training for CAF specific requirements (ie engineers, dentists, doctors, etc).  Like any program, you have the rockstars and the duds, but you could say that for all entry streams.

They do the same with some NCM technical occupations as well, where we partner with civilian colleges for the background training with a bit of navy specific training at the end to get their basic tickets, and it can work out pretty well.


----------



## dapaterson

I've never called for decentralization; I'm calling for the engineers in uniform to be replaced with engineers in civilian clothing.  The MARE, RCEME, AERE and Signals officer communities have become primarily Ottawa-based groups.  With a fixed number of military positions available, that's a problem.  Add to that the frequent churn in such jobs for military members, and you contribute to the delays experienced by many Defence projects.

The technical skills are great places to employ civilians.


----------



## Jed

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I've never called for decentralization; I'm calling for the engineers in uniform to be replaced with engineers in civilian clothing.  The MARE, RCEME, AERE and Signals officer communities have become primarily Ottawa-based groups.  With a fixed number of military positions available, that's a problem.  Add to that the frequent churn in such jobs for military members, and you contribute to the delays experienced by many Defence projects.
> 
> The technical skills are great places to employ civilians.



So are you including the Construction And Field RCAF and Army engineers in this too? Speaking form a Civi U educated 45B/45C /24A / 00181  I don't agree with that.


----------



## dapaterson

If you are mostly doing PM work from an office, then I question the need for the work to be done by uniformed personnel.

If there are some garrison positions to maintain some balance with field deployable positions, then I can see the requirement.

A military is not a staff organization.  Staff organizations must be lean and designed to enable and support the force.  Static HQ functions are a waste of military personnel.  (And contribute to oversize HQs that are slow, plodding and unresponsive, but that's another issue...)


----------



## Jed

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you are mostly doing PM work from an office, then I question the need for the work to be done by uniformed personnel.
> 
> If there are some garrison positions to maintain some balance with field deployable positions, then I can see the requirement.
> 
> A military is not a staff organization.  Staff organizations must be lean and designed to enable and support the force.  Static HQ functions are a waste of military personnel.  (And contribute to oversize HQs that are slow, plodding and unresponsive, but that's another issue...)



That is a key requirement.  The civi types don't deploy very effectively without the military training component. When you need them, you need them now going in with the advance party and coming back last. The reserves have a tough time providing even rudimentary trained engineers / techs as they usually have a good job somewhere that keeps them steadily employed full time. I am sure you know all this intimately.


----------



## dapaterson

Look at the ratio of field to office for MARE, RCEME, AERE and Signals officers.  It's a tad skewed.  I know of one TDO who had to fight to keep "battlefield damage repair" in one occupational specification; the so-called SMEs didn't see the need, since it wasn't something they did day to day.  :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you are mostly doing PM work from an office, then I question the need for the work to be done by uniformed personnel.
> 
> If there are some garrison positions to maintain some balance with field deployable positions, then I can see the requirement.
> 
> A military is not a staff organization.  Staff organizations must be lean and designed to enable and support the force.  Static HQ functions are a waste of military personnel.  (And contribute to oversize HQs that are slow, plodding and unresponsive, but that's another issue...)




Although I've been retired for many, many years, I want to chime in and support dapaterson. I understand that the training regime for e.g. naval engineering officers is long and technically demanding and I am aware that not many civilian universities offer _suites_ of programmes that are _tailored_ to the needs of e.g. the RCN and RCAF engineering communities. But, in general:

     1. Some branches, especially some engineering branches are "out of balance" ~ too many people doing what is, essentially, civil service or civilian contractor work while wearing a uniform and occupying a valuable CF establishment
         position. They are what Evelyn Waugh described (in one of the _Sword of Honour_ series of novels) as "heavily armed civilians;"

     2. This _misbalancing_ means that essential, _operational_, combat functions get shuffled into second or third place behind e.g. project management skills; and

     3. One result of the _misbalancing_ is that the sorts of military/operational skill/experience sets that a uniformed member ought to bring to project office are all too often absent in some engineering branches.

I'm not suggesting that the CF doesn't need some uniformed engineering officers in Ottawa: it does; there are valuable, important jobs to be done there, but _I believe_ the current plethora of inexperienced junior officers that I see in Ottawa is dangerous. I concede that, back in the 1980s, at least, there were not enough civil servants or contractors to fill all the project team slots that we needed and so we employed relatively junior AERE and MARE officers because they were qualified and available ... but that was not the case for all branches and _I suspect_ it is not the overall situation now.

Perhaps my previous suggestions about delaying degree programmes for all officers is too ambitious. Perhaps some engineering branches need more academics in order for the officer to complete training ... but is that a full BEng degree or it is, say, the equivalent of, maybe, ⅔ or ¾ of the courses needed for a degree? (I remember, by the way, when RMC produced loads of good "engineering" officers, in the 1950s, without, ever, awarding a degree in anything. The College taught them all the math, science and technology they needed ~ and in the 1950s the military was at the leading edge of technology and RMC was ahead of most universities in e.g. the emerging field of computing ~ but it did not award degrees. Officers who finished RMC and needed or wanted a degree went to civilian universities for one (quite relaxing, I was told) academic year, at DND's expense, to get it.)


----------



## Good2Golf

Uniformed personnel should primarily be the champions of the operational requirement and form part of the checks and balances that ensure the design and implementation of a particular capability meets the stated needs of the CAF.  Appropriately-qualified military personnel can do this, even on a relatively abbrviated HR posting cycle compared to civilian project management staff, without unduly compromising the integrity and consistency of project, progam or portfolio management.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## dapaterson

In other words: requirements definition requires a strong military presence; procurement, not so much.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In other words: requirements definition requires a strong military presence; procurement, not so much.


 
   :nod:


----------



## Lumber

Spectrum said:
			
		

> So why so much focus on ROTP vs DEO? Are we worried we won't be able to recruit anyone? Or is ROTP/RMC just sacred ground for the CAF? I think I know the true answer, but I am curious to hear what others think.



I'm not going to say that it's the _primary_ reason, but I think there is a cost/time benefit to ROTP vs DEO.

Let's say a DEO enrolls in May, about the same time ROTP students are commissioned following successful completion of their degrees. At this point, the difference is that ROTP students could have completed up to Phase IV of their MOC trg (more likely just 3 phases), they have a commitment to 5 years in the forces, while the DEO students are just starting basic and have no _financial_ commitment. Basically, you get more employable officers at 22 year old through ROTP. 

It's thin, I know. I'm trying to find better justifications.


----------



## McG

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not going to say that it's the _primary_ reason, but I think there is a cost/time benefit to ROTP vs DEO.
> 
> Let's say a DEO enrolls in May, about the same time ROTP students are commissioned following successful completion of their degrees. At this point, the difference is that ROTP students could have completed up to Phase IV of their MOC trg (more likely just 3 phases), they have a commitment to 5 years in the forces, while the DEO students are just starting basic and have no _financial_ commitment. Basically, you get more employable officers at 22 year old through ROTP.
> 
> It's thin, I know. I'm trying to find better justifications.


Very thin.  If the comparison is going to be from the date of graduation and not date of enrollment, your ROTP guy only has 5 years remaining on his initial engement while the the DEO has 9 years.  The ROTP guy only has to work for 20 to 21 years before being entitled to a pension while the DEO must do 25.  I am not sure how you define "more employable" but it seems to be based on an ROTP entrant being able to actually start working (ie. hit OFP) up to one year younger than a DEO entrant.  Does that one year at the front really matter when career and pension systems will keep the DEO for more than one extra year at the back end?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think the title should be corrected: There is no way in hell Canada is buying back Royal Roads. So the issue should be the utility of two military colleges.

I suggets some data on the following question would be useful here, if any one has such data: Since CMR has been cut down to a CEGEP course with the OCdts then being sent to Kingston for their bachelor's degree, did the number of French Canadian recruits to the military college drop significantly?

If it did drop significantly, and if it was determined that having a military college vs. not having a military college is a useful employment of resources, then I suggest that having two such colleges providing full degrees, one English and one French, makes perfect sense.


----------



## Lumber

MCG said:
			
		

> Very thin.  If the comparison is going to be from the date of graduation and not date of enrollment, your ROTP guy only has 5 years remaining on his initial engement while the the DEO has 9 years.  The ROTP guy only has to work for 20 to 21 years before being entitled to a pension while the DEO must do 25.  I am not sure how you define "more employable" but it seems to be based on an ROTP entrant being able to actually start working (ie. hit OFP) up to one year younger than a DEO entrant.  Does that one year at the front really matter when career and pension systems will keep the DEO for more than one extra year at the back end?



Just to clarify, the ROTP initial engagement is 12-13 years depending on your trade, which means the ROTP entrant has 8-9 years remaining upon completion of University. The 5 years is just the obligatory service period, during which if we release we would owe the government back for our subsidized education.

Other arguments:
1. as a recruiting tool; who doesn't love free education, followed by guaranteed employment; and 
2. (and you're going to hate this one) RMC is sometimes seen a prestigious institution that attracts some of the best of the best who have proven leadership skills. Don't we want to attract some of these people into the forces?


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think the title should be corrected: There is no way in hell Canada is buying back Royal Roads. So the issue should be the utility of two military colleges.



I don't know...a few years ago, anyone thinking that ranks for the CA and RCAF would be changed/reverted would have probably been told "hell no" as well.  

Actually....is the riding that RRMC is in a contentious one?   >


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think the title should be corrected: There is no way in hell Canada is buying back Royal Roads. So the issue should be the utility of two military colleges.


The title is correct.  RMC, CMR and CFC.  We have three.


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> The title is correct.  RMC, CMR and CFC.  We have three.



Except CFC grants no degrees; those who pursue a Masters at CFC get it through RMC.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except CFC grants no degrees; those who pursue a Masters at CFC get it through RMC.



But it could easily be U of T or any one of a dozen other universities, right?  :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But it could easily be U of T or any one of a dozen other universities, right?  :nod:


Precisely.  A Sandhurst model that provides officer _training_, while leveraging the civilian university system for _education_.  A broad-based education means not drawing a significant portion of the officer corps from any one school.

A revitalized COTC, perhaps?


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Precisely.  A Sandhurst model that provides officer _training_, while leveraging the civilian university system for _education_.  A broad-based education means not drawing a significant portion of the officer corps from any one school.
> 
> A revitalized COTC, perhaps?



I believe that would be an excellent option. Cheaper than a gigantic 'bricks and mortar' ball and chain while maintaining a solid connection with the community, academic and otherwise.


----------



## bLUE fOX

On an only slightly related note, I was under the impression that the CAF never actually gave up Royal Roads, and that it was leased to the Royal Roads University in much the same way that CMR was (is? http://www.cfsj.qc.ca/en//). Given that DND is already paying for maintenance and up keep why couldn't they re-lease the school from Royal Roads University, in the same way they're doing for St Jean?


----------



## daftandbarmy

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> On an only slightly related note, I was under the impression that the CAF never actually gave up Royal Roads, and that it was leased to the Royal Roads University in much the same way that CMR was (is? http://www.cfsj.qc.ca/en//). Given that DND is already paying for maintenance and up keep why couldn't they re-lease the school from Royal Roads University, in the same way they're doing for St Jean?



If they did, they could count on some huge and very public resistance from BC.


----------



## Blackadder1916

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> On an only slightly related note, I was under the impression that the CAF never actually gave up Royal Roads, and that it was leased to the Royal Roads University in much the same way that CMR was (is? http://www.cfsj.qc.ca/en//). Given that DND is already paying for maintenance and up keep why couldn't they re-lease the school from Royal Roads University, in the same way they're doing for St Jean?



While the CAF Government of Canada may be the owner of the property, like any other landlord, they would still have to abide by the terms of any lease they have with the tenant.  The length of the lease, amount of rent, responsibility for maintenance, etc, are probably all detailed in that document, though it is likely very favourable to Royal Roads University.  The link only itemizes the amount that was paid (by the GOC in 2014) in lieu of municipal taxes - $126,659.31.


----------



## Good2Golf

Why would a rather successful rejuvenation of a storied institution wish to allow the Federal government to attempt to revert function from the current gamut of internationally highly-regarded post-graduate degrees back to undergrad degrees and an attempt to relive a past that might not be a fit for the miltary's current officer educational requirements.

The difference is an institution that moved on, respected heritage, but chose a new leadmark and moved forward with conviction and excellence, compared to an institution wherein alumni ensured the direction of the day was tacitly ignored, and with to some, a less than wholly convincing case for action, 'fix' a problem that hadn't ever been identified objectively and, more importantly, validated.  RMCC/CMRC by all measures provides the military officer output required and supports the CAF's mission in support of the Official Languages Act.  "Ou se trouve la problème?" 

???

G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In other words: requirements definition requires a strong military presence; procurement, not so much.



ff topic:

Having just been involved in a successful large procurement, I would disagree.  Having uniformed personnel directly involved changed the project dynamic a lot, ensured it focused on real operational requirements for when we were vetting technical needs, and also generally kept it rolling as we could be a little more... assertive?  then our civilian counterparts.  As well, kind of a hard to quantify factor, but as we were buying something for the Navy, being able to actually be there, in uniform, while talking about the sailors that wanted the new kit they were bidding on, seemed to help put a human face onto a large procurement for a big company, and I think that they genuinely wanted to put together a quality bid to support the troops in their own way, and also got the ODGs working on it to make a bit more of an effort.  Could have all been window dressing of course, but I'm cautiously optimistic.  

Also, back at an operational unit, I was immediately able to make use of the contacts I had made and knowing who to call in ADM(Mat), was able to get help very quickly to source hard to find parts, technical support etc.  Mileage will probably vary from individuals, but my personal experience it worked out really well to spend time in LSTL as a juniour officer.  Intend to take the same operational experience back to LSTL to work on some specific projects.

Do get the argument you are making in general though; there are a lot of people bouncing around Ottawa jobs that could easily do it as civilians.  However the workload keeps increasing while they are cutting civilian staff levels, at least with the Navy and all the big ship projects.  For that reason they are using a lot of military guys to plug the holes.  They have made transitioning to civilians a lot easier recently as well, so I think the majority of the replacements for the folks that do eventually retire will be filled with military members that jump into the flat faced civy roles.  Serving CAF members probably made up a large portion of the recent EG 6, Eng 4 and Eng 5 pools they ran, and that's a good way to keep the valuable military experience without taking up a uniform position, rather then getting some random kid off the street.


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Why would a rather successful rejuvenation of a storied institution wish to allow the Federal government to attempt to revert function from the current gamut of internationally highly-regarded post-graduate degrees back to undergrad degrees and an attempt to relive a past that might not be a fit for the miltary's current officer educational requirements.
> 
> The difference is an institution that moved on, respected heritage, but chose a new leadmark and moved forward with conviction and excellence, compared to an institution wherein alumni ensured the direction of the day was tacitly ignored, and with to some, a less than wholly convincing case for action, 'fix' a problem that hadn't ever been identified objectively and, more importantly, validated.  RMCC/CMRC by all measures provides the military officer output required and supports the CAF's mission in support of the Official Languages Act.  "Ou se trouve la problème?"
> 
> ???
> 
> G2G



I'm having trouble telling if this is an argument in support of or against the colleges...


----------



## Good2Golf

Why would Royal Roads University want to be a party to meddling by the Feds?  Let CMR alumni and academia spearhead the reversing of previous decisions...


----------



## McG

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Having just been involved in a successful large procurement, I would disagree.  Having uniformed personnel directly involved changed the project dynamic a lot, ensured it focused on real operational requirements for when we were vetting technical needs, and also generally kept it rolling as we could be a little more... assertive?  then our civilian counterparts.  As well, kind of a hard to quantify factor, but as we were buying something for the Navy, being able to actually be there, in uniform, while talking about the sailors that wanted the new kit they were bidding on, seemed to help put a human face onto a large procurement for a big company, and I think that they genuinely wanted to put together a quality bid to support the troops in their own way, and also got the ODGs working on it to make a bit more of an effort.  Could have all been window dressing of course, but I'm cautiously optimistic.


Sounds like the job of the PD staff and DMRS.  That is not to say there should be no military presence in the PM staff, but it should be very small and not the PM him/herself.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Regarding my statement about RRMC, I didn't mean to imply that we should go back to it, and your right, given what sounds like a remarkable deal with the federal government, they'd be silly to want to give it up. All I meant to point out was that the government still owned it, and given the move towards the retro that has been creeping up, it might be something they consider. There seems to be no qualms about leasing back facilities like Gimili, Partage la Prairie, Cornwallis or CMR to fill functions, I would think that if they wanted to Royal Roads would be no different.

As for whether or not the CAF needs the service colleges, as a current student of RMC (paying cash our of pocket for the experience), I'm told that a number of schools are less expensive, but given I can't take the time off work for full time education, RMCC is the best option available to me. 

If the CAF is paying for members to go full time, to me it makes sense to send them else where, especially if it is cheaper.

One final thing, I have heard it said that it is unhealthy for universities to hire professors who were either educated by the hiring school or who had taken their entire education at a single institution, as this would lead to academic stagnation.


----------



## captloadie

There is one other benefit that comes from the military colleges. The networking and bonds made there often last throughout one's career. Yes, it may be the old boys club, but at times, it helps get things done. With more and more joint exercises occurring, it can make liaising across elements much easier when you know the guys or gal on the other end of the e-mail phone. You wouldn't get that with a purely civilianized ROTP/DEO plan. 

It also used to be a way to weed out those that just couldn't cut it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

captloadie said:
			
		

> There is one other benefit that comes from the military colleges. The networking and bonds made there often last throughout one's career. Yes, it may be the old boys club, but at times, it helps get things done. With more and more joint exercises occurring, it can make liaising across elements much easier when you know the guys or gal on the other end of the e-mail phone. You wouldn't get that with a purely civilianized ROTP/DEO plan.
> 
> It also used to be a way to weed out those that just couldn't cut it.



Believe me, the British military has a similar, well functioning 'old boy's/girl's' network without the added cost of a 4 year degree program.

And they do some pretty good weeding at RMA Sandhurst too.  :nod:


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Believe me, the British military has a similar, well functioning 'old boy's/girl's' network without the added cost of a 4 year degree program.
> 
> And they do some pretty good weeding at RMA Sandhurst too.  :nod:



I'd say we do too - it's called the Mess (for the 20 people or so who still use it for Fri after-work drinks).


----------

