Author Topic: It’s 2017. The Military Still Requires Officers To Have College Degrees. Why?  (Read 11659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 201,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,799
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Good question.....

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

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

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

http://taskandpurpose.com/2017-military-still-requires-officers-college-degrees/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 40,428
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,650
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: It’s 2017. The Military Still Requires Officers
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2017, 10:34:33 »
Good read.  It raises some valid points. 

Thanks for sharing!
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 408,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,636
Unfortunately, the Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces is no longer available online; recommendation 10 of that report is what drives the CAF "Degreed Officer Corps".  Unfortunately, the intent of building a more robust intellectual underpinning to the Profession of Arms has been reduced to a checklist item.


This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 209,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,556
Let me, as someone who was commissioned and served without a degree, offer a few thoughts from back when the earth was still cooling. I remember any number of briefings by the high-priced help in which they remarked that there was no guarantee that any one candidate for officer training would make a useful and successful officer. Over the years various armies tried all sorts of election criteria, and all proved to be equally mediocre: breeding; degrees; military academies; selection boards; practical tests - none were infallible and most were a waste of time and resources. It all depended on how the candidate performed under tons of stress during their training, and even then performance on regimental duty was the ultimate test. Maybe we you have got smarter and discovered the magic solution since I came through in 1960-1961, but somehow I doubt it.

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

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 408,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,636
Nope, there is room for some sorting process, but dependence on a degree is not the answer, it is part of an answer.

I'd add the bold bit above.  A degree an and of itself is not an answer; you can earn a degree but still be in the bottom 2% of applicants.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,125
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
....Over the years various armies tried all sorts of election criteria, and all proved to be equally mediocre: breeding; degrees; military academies; selection boards; practical tests - none were infallible and most were a waste of time and resources. ....

I think you missed one - the ability to finance your own battalion.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
I think Gault did all right with the PPCLI.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,485
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Like Old Sweat, I'm a product of the OCTP system where only education requirement was to have junior matriculation which back the was grade 12 (Ontario).

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

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

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

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

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

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 81,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,699
I think Gault did all right with the PPCLI.

Yes, but he had the good sense to find an experienced officer to command it.  He did not immediately take command.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 40,428
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,650
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: It’s 2017. The Military Still Requires Officers To
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2017, 06:05:38 »
Like Old Sweat, I'm a product of the OCTP system where only education requirement was to have junior matriculation which back the was grade 12 (Ontario).

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

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

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

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

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

 :cheers:

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

I feel we have a plethora of NCMs who would make excellent officers.  But getting them into that stream is not as easy as it should be.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 100,289
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,779
Where the degree comes in useful though is preparing officers for the mountains of staff work they will be required to do as they progress in their career.

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,116
Where the degree comes in useful though is preparing officers for the mountains of staff work they will be required to do as they progress in their career.

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

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

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

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 408,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,636
Some of this comes down to philosophical concepts of education vs training.  Simplified, training improves performance of specific tasks; education develops reasoning and judgement.

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

http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-training-and-education.html#ixzz4W0ZEK5oD
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 11,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.

I total y concur, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 100,289
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,779
I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
I fully concur with Baz's explanation of what constitutes staff work as opposed to administrative/keeping technical records work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

 

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 297
I fully concur with Baz's explanation of what constitutes staff work as opposed to administrative/keeping technical records work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 408,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,636
Or do we need to rethink how we're structured?  We have more senior officers in the Reg F (Maj and above) today than we did when the Reg F was over 90,000 strong.  Nearly 10% of the Trained Effective Establishment is senior officers.  Can we streamline HQ functions and reduce the size of that cohort?

Maybe we need to get officers doing more officer stuff (and in smaller numbers), and empower senior NCMs more.  Where necessary, provide those SNCOs with training or education to enable them.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 738
Professions require education.  Higher education.  You cannot be a professional (in the proper definition of the term) without it.  See Drs, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, Nurses etc... Therefore the "Profession at arms" needs an education because minimum literacy and numeracy standards have to be met.

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

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

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

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 201,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,799
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Finally the real reason we have university educated officers is because of the Somalia Report which pointed out that the Canadian Forces officer corps were highly resistant too and lacked higher education (the groupthink problems referenced earlier).  IIRC it was below 40% of officers who had a degree.  The recommendation that came out of that was that all officers must have a university degree, which DND accepted with the goal that 95% of officers would have a degree of some type.

Bad leadership begets bad leaders.

No amount of education can address that issue. Blanket policies like 'everyone will get a degree so we don't have any more war crimes' is a cop out, as well as being naïve.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,116
Professions require education.  Higher education.  You cannot be a professional (in the proper definition of the term) without it.  See Drs, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, Nurses etc... Therefore the "Profession at arms" needs an education because minimum literacy and numeracy standards have to be met.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,116
Bad leadership begets bad leaders.

Mefloquine didn't help, either.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
A few extra remarks at this point:

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

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

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

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

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 738
How did we ever win the Second World War with so few degrees among so many Officers?

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

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

University education is the first step in your professional life.  Engineers are not legally engineers until they do 4 years of experience in industry under a PEO and pass an ethics and law exam, Dr's must do a residency in a hospital outside of school etc...  and if you want to get technical you can go to milcol to get a military focused education.

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

This is going to come across insulting but it's not intended that way.  You're a pilot.  If you can make it through pilot training you had to read and understand technical manuals, airfoil science etc...  That points to the fact that you were educated enough or just generally very bright.  However how much does pilot training cost.  Are you willing to increase the cost to the training system because someone doesn't have the basic literacy to read a technical manual.
  Education standards reduce that risk significantly.


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

They do demonstrate that, but we don't hire people to fail them out of training if they can't.  We hire them with the goal that they can successfully complete training and do our best to ensure we have the new Jr. officers that can succeed.  Every person who fails out of training is a waste of resources, time and a spot where another person who was qualified could have succeeded.  It's impossible to perfectly predict success in training, but education reduces the risk of a training failure.  That's not made up the PSels have the data.  And its statistically significant.  As for seeing the world etc... well that's great after you have finished training, and that's experience.

And what was the success/failure rate like in the "bad old" pre-every-Officer-must-have-a-degree days? If it was worse, is the difference worth the time and cost of putting every single Officer through three or four years of university?
Doesn't really matter does it.  The training and the requirements are completely different today then the "bad old days". But you can compare between new officers who are going to get their degree within their first engagement period vs the ones who already have their degree.  There is a reason that the DEO and ROTP numbers at the recruiting level are much higher than those other programs.

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

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

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

Dr's and lawyers have to get a degree from another institution before they go to med or law school.  And as such their second degree is the one taught by their profession.  Exactly like Officer training.  Engineers have math, science, history and engineering profs teach them during their undergrad with a high credit requirement for arts courses to make them well rounded.

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

We do something like that at Ryerson with their flight school program.  And RMC is still a military college and a civilian degree granting institution.

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

It isn't, but it increases the chances of that happening.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 18:25:21 by Underway »

Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 393
Not to mention that other Professions such have been listed require university education that directly relates to the specific job.

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

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

Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell