• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Have your say on the future of Canadian Military Colleges: Review Board launches consultations with Canadians online portal

The report says that spreading them out to Civvy U would be no better and would still not solve a culture problem.
So they'd be like the average Canadian university student. They'd have a better fundamental understanding of Canadian society and the CF would save millions of $.

If the military can't inculcate them with the proper military training and desired culture during some 11 to 14 months or more of cumulative summer cadet training then there is no hope.

šŸ»
 
That's horseshit though; the metric they are being compared against is civvy U, and there are things that happen at RMC that got swept under the rug that would have gotten the students kicked out of RMC. It's also demonstrably much less expensive to pay tuition compared to the per student cost at RMC, and they are just focused on academics, not all the extra stuff RMC does on top of that, so they have more time to dedicate to school in a time when their job is to learn.

The one that springs to mind is where the Col(?) got disciplined for yelling at RMC cadets who were yelling out sexual comments and catcalling visiting army cadets who were in the 14-16 year old range. I don't think that would happen at a civvy U, but if it did there are things like student codes of conduct that can and have been enforced.

And one thing that no one talks about but as far as I know, there is no demonstrable difference in actual performance if you poll the PERs/PARs and compare it to time in rank for other officer training programs, so the fact that a lot of RMC grads make it to GOFO has more to do with joining at 18 and sticking it out than RMC.
All that I am saying is that the fix was in before the committee looked at the Mil Cols.

I had low expectations about the report, but not everything they said was stupid.

Basically, they said the academic wing is too powerful and needs to be clipped back so that military training can be fit within the actual work day, which I thought was refreshing. Oh, and that there should actually be a standard military training curriculum (which floored me, that they were just kind of making it upā€¦).
 
All that I am saying is that the fix was in before the committee looked at the Mil Cols.

I had low expectations about the report, but not everything they said was stupid.

Basically, they said the academic wing is too powerful and needs to be clipped back so that military training can be fit within the actual work day, which I thought was refreshing. Oh, and that there should actually be a standard military training curriculum (which floored me, that they were just kind of making it upā€¦).

I would love to read a rebuttal to the report produced by graduates, and others, but describing their version of a better future and where that differs from the committeeā€™s version.
 
I will admit to struggling with the concept of RMC in todays world. As a teenager I looked at the CAF but RMC was for engineering (not a math guy) or history (and what do I do with that post CAF?). Aware there were more options but that's all that was talked about. And it killed the CAF as a serious option because I could not see a path post CAF that would not require starting over any schooling.

Does make me wonder though about an alternative:

RMC becomes the training "school" for Captain and higher officer ranks and Sergeant/Warrant Officer. Why I use "school" is that it should be more of an Athabasca University/Royal Rhodes type online education aspect to allow for professional development without the need for large scale infrastructure and posting expenses.

I am sure there are certain staff level courses that would be appropriate to teach in person, in a group situation, but that should be an anomaly.

Instead I'd rather see RMC be focused on allowing a means of professional training focused upon the individuals trade. Maybe as an umbrella school that also considers the following situations:
1) Which courses does the CAF offer that - in a civilian school set up - would be considered a course credit. Language skills/Leadership training...RMC would post that CAF course X = credit for RMC course Y.
2) Are there deployment experiences that could also be considered equivalent. I'm thinking OP LENTUS (emergency response courses), Select missions to observer missions, NATO?. Civilian schools offer credits for field schools and I have to think some of the work CAF members have done would be to at least that high of standard. Again course credit offered for course Z
3) Trade equivalency. Whether it's a mechanic or medic in the CAF the school would allow for tracking against X standard to show where both education and blue book hour would be tracked to allow for red seal status upon completion of the terms of service. Course credit listed when appropriate. (will note I'm less clear on trades)
4) Coordination of alternative schooling. If RMC offered a basic BA in Business for example a new private out of high school may be able to apply through a mix of UofA night classes when posted at CFB Edmonton then online courses via Athabasca University when posted to CFB Shilo and then complete the course work needed via University of Toronto online options when posted to CFB Petawawa. The point here is that many schools are run based upon all courses being done through "their" options and RMC - instead of offering the course - would consider an umbrella of options for a CAF member to complete a valid degree through RMC that best aligns for the CAF member.

Ideally this would allow a CAF member to create a profile with RMC that combines their previous academic work + CAF coursework + posting credits to equal a situation where a member can see I'm 5? courses short of a degree in _______. And here are the online options accepted by RMC to complete the degree while a member of the CAF.

Do not get rid of the facility though. Use it as an administrative center and consider a Company? sized unit of Reg Force troops being posted there?
A) a mix of education administration/calibration and
B) a new subunit posting maybe under FJAG's 70/30 posting option allowing for a more urbanized posting to address retention issues using the existing dormitories/quarters for the Reserve units southern Ontario.

Random thoughts but it's what came to mind drinking coffee on days off.
 
I will admit to struggling with the concept of RMC in todays world. As a teenager I looked at the CAF but RMC was for engineering (not a math guy) or history (and what do I do with that post CAF?).

im right here schitts creek GIF by CBC
 
I skimmed through the report and I think there may be some good things in there.

What struck me was the number of times that recommendations made had previously been made (sometimes more than once) and not acted upon.

I would like someone to say that this is the last kick at the can. If results are not demonstrated in some reasonable time frame, it's done. This is the last chance.
 
I skimmed through the report and I think there may be some good things in there.

What struck me was the number of times that recommendations made had previously been made (sometimes more than once) and not acted upon.

I would like someone to say that this is the last kick at the can. If results are not demonstrated in some reasonable time frame, it's done. This is the last chance.

I believe that one of the traditions is to kick that can down the road every decade or so ;)
 
So they'd be like the average Canadian university student. They'd have a better fundamental understanding of Canadian society and the CF would save millions of $.

If the military can't inculcate them with the proper military training and desired culture during some 11 to 14 months or more of cumulative summer cadet training then there is no hope.

šŸ»
COTC maybe?
 
Admirals Dave Gardam, Bruce Donalson, Bob Davidson: None of these officers went to RMC. They got their university degrees at CivviU. Moreover, none of them went through Chilliwak (in those days), they graduated in the Naval Reserve BOTC program and switched to Reg F after their university graduation: There is absolutely no need, nor correlation, between going to RMC and success as an officer.

To quote Star Trek: Kirk: "How will your cadets react", Spock: "As with all things, each according to their gift".
 
Admirals Dave Gardam, Bruce Donalson, Bob Davidson: None of these officers went to RMC. They got their university degrees at CivviU. Moreover, none of them went through Chilliwak (in those days), they graduated in the Naval Reserve BOTC program and switched to Reg F after their university graduation: There is absolutely no need, nor correlation, between going to RMC and success as an officer.

To quote Star Trek: Kirk: "How will your cadets react", Spock: "As with all things, each according to their gift".

Thousands of RMA Sandhurst Officers over the years, those who did not graduate from University, are a testament to that ...
 
Admirals Dave Gardam, Bruce Donalson, Bob Davidson: None of these officers went to RMC. They got their university degrees at CivviU. Moreover, none of them went through Chilliwak (in those days), they graduated in the Naval Reserve BOTC program and switched to Reg F after their university graduation: There is absolutely no need, nor correlation, between going to RMC and success as an officer.

To quote Star Trek: Kirk: "How will your cadets react", Spock: "As with all things, each according to their gift".
There is s correlation between reaching Flag/General Officer and going to RMC though.

A lot of what made RMC "special" or at least appear "special" is gone though. I graduated from RMC and when I enrolled 20+ years ago, the school had a certain level of prestige associated with it. Getting accepted in to the program and graduating actually meant something, or, it gave off the appearance that it did.

It was also considered a hard program. The most important skill I learned from my time at RMC was time management and how to take 20lbs of shit and make it fit in to a 5lb bag. The program was deliberately structured to fill your day with as much activity as possible and the actual training value was learning to balance that to achieve all your assigned and implied tasks.

That training has paid off in spades for me in my personal and professional life. I will be the first to put my hand up and say I'm not the smartest guy in the World. My ability to manage multiple inputs simultaneously and turn them in to outputs is unmatched in my current line of work. Smarter people than I have failed at what I do, simply because they can't juggle very well.

The skills that allowed me to do that were first taught at RMC.
 
We await the results. It's a shot in the dark and I suspect the trades they will offer her will not appeal to her. Our other plan is BCIT nautical science and applying as Deck Officer in the CCG, with plan C being BCIT Business Operations Management.
 
There is s correlation between reaching Flag/General Officer and going to RMC though.

A lot of what made RMC "special" or at least appear "special" is gone though. I graduated from RMC and when I enrolled 20+ years ago, the school had a certain level of prestige associated with it. Getting accepted in to the program and graduating actually meant something, or, it gave off the appearance that it did.
I'll agree with the "appearance" of "prestige." When I joined my regiment as a newbie subbie there were three of us who were OCTP, two RMC and one ROTP by way of civvy university. The two RMCers were considered God's gift to the world, us three OCTP rats were the scum of the earth and the civvy U guy was seen as the invisible average in the middle. I reality he was the brightest of the six of us (and of the other dozen older lieutenants already in the unit) and went on to become a corporate lawyer and CEO of a big military equipment supplier out of the US. It's not even a matter of first appearances, its a preconception which predominates and, as so often in a hierarchy, promotion comes by way of "promotion in their own image." In those days, RMC trained leaders preferred and promoted RMC subordinates.
It was also considered a hard program. The most important skill I learned from my time at RMC was time management and how to take 20lbs of shit and make it fit in to a 5lb bag. The program was deliberately structured to fill your day with as much activity as possible and the actual training value was learning to balance that to achieve all your assigned and implied tasks.
Much of that I also learned as an OCTP cadet during my eleven months of basic officer training, but admittedly it wasn't until the old Avenue Road Staff School that I was actually taught time management in a systematic way. As a nineteen-year-old cadet I was sick and tired of academics - the hands on stuff was much more to my style. As a twenty-two-year-old I was ready to learn. People respond differently. That three month course did more to prepare me as a staff officer than four years of RMC ever could. My biggest problem with RMC is that it wastes the most important four years of a young officer's life in a fairy-tale pseudo military environment. Those years could be spent more constructively with a more focused education opportunity for those down the road who need and can make the most use of it.
That training has paid off in spades for me in my personal and professional life. I will be the first to put my hand up and say I'm not the smartest guy in the World. My ability to manage multiple inputs simultaneously and turn them in to outputs is unmatched in my current line of work. Smarter people than I have failed at what I do, simply because they can't juggle very well.

The skills that allowed me to do that were first taught at RMC.
I can say exactly the same with respect to my OCTP experience and subsequent training. And I can say even more so for those civvy university trained individuals I met along the way. People are different across the board. Some will fail, some will survive and some will thrive, regardless.

šŸ»
 
I'll agree with the "appearance" of "prestige." When I joined my regiment as a newbie subbie there were three of us who were OCTP, two RMC and one ROTP by way of civvy university. The two RMCers were considered God's gift to the world, us three OCTP rats were the scum of the earth and the civvy U guy was seen as the invisible average in the middle. I reality he was the brightest of the six of us (and of the other dozen older lieutenants already in the unit) and went on to become a corporate lawyer and CEO of a big military equipment supplier out of the US. It's not even a matter of first appearances, its a preconception which predominates and, as so often in a hierarchy, promotion comes by way of "promotion in their own image." In those days, RMC trained leaders preferred and promoted RMC subordinates.
The first rule of building an "elite" unit in the Military is that... you need to tell them they are 'elite' aka special.

There is a very simple set of reasons for this:

Enhanced Motivation and Pride:
Being part of an elite unit can create a strong sense of belonging and purpose, motivating individuals to strive for excellence and meet the high standards expected of them.

Increased Self-Perception:
When individuals are told they are part of something special, they are more likely to believe in their own abilities and capabilities, leading to improved performance and confidence.

Stronger Team Cohesion:
A shared identity as "elite" can foster a sense of camaraderie and unity among team members, as they work together to maintain and uphold the unit's reputation.

Higher Standards and Expectations:
Elite units are often held to higher standards, which can drive individuals to train harder and perform better, pushing them to reach their full potential.

Psychological Advantage:
The psychological advantage of being perceived as elite can translate into a competitive edge on the field, as the unit can maintain a higher level of confidence and determination.

This is what used to be done at RMC. It's the same means that are used to create Special Operations Units. Now is it necessarily true in all cases...no of course not. But that's the general idea.

The whole idea behind RMC falls apart when you eliminate the prestige and the sheen that comes with graduating from that program.
Much of that I also learned as an OCTP cadet during my eleven months of basic officer training, but admittedly it wasn't until the old Avenue Road Staff School that I was actually taught time management in a systematic way. As a nineteen-year-old cadet I was sick and tired of academics - the hands on stuff was much more to my style. As a twenty-two-year-old I was ready to learn. People respond differently. That three month course did more to prepare me as a staff officer than four years of RMC ever could.
How do you know that? You never went to RMC. You have no idea how hard the program is or was because you never attended it so you're speaking from a position if ignorance tbh. You may have had some experiences with certain RMC grads that gave you a negative perception but I would challenge you to find any unit that doesn't have idiots in its ranks... even JTF2 has had some absolute zingers make it through šŸ˜‰
My biggest problem with RMC is that it wastes the most important four years of a young officer's life in a fairy-tale pseudo military environment. Those years could be spent more constructively with a more focused education opportunity for those down the road who need and can make the most use of it.

I can say exactly the same with respect to my OCTP experience and subsequent training. And I can say even more so for those civvy university trained individuals I met along the way. People are different across the board. Some will fail, some will survive and some will thrive, regardless.

šŸ»

What's 'fairy tale' about it? I got exposed to lots of Military concepts while studying at RMC. Way more than if I had gone to civilian university. I also had some pretty awesome professors with actual bona-fide Military credentials including the former DCO of JTF2, TF Commanders overseas, etc... I also went to school with some pretty amazing people who went on to do some pretty impressive things and have bled for this Country.

RMC is steeped in blood and it's built on the blood and sweat of thousands of everyday Canadians who took up the call.

The real thing I like about RMC is that it isn't like every other Ivy League prissy school where rich parents pay for their kids to attend. It's Canadians from all walks of life that are selected based off merit to become Officers in the Armed Forces. They come out of the program extremely fit, bilingual, with an education and a military bearing.


Most of the hate regarding RMC comes from people who never went there. They hate it because they don't benefit from it so their reasons are usually 100% pure self-interest aka "selfishness".
 
Last edited:
The first rule of building an "elite" unit in the Military is that... you need to tell them they are 'elite' aka special.
Agreed. And agreed as to what followed re the components of building elitism.
This is what used to be done at RMC. It's the same means that are used to create Special Operations Units. Now is it necessarily true in all cases...no of course not. But that's the general idea.

The whole idea behind RMC falls apart when you eliminate the prestige and the sheen that comes with graduating from that program.
I'm not sure where you re going with that last part.
How do you know that? You never went to RMC. You have no idea how hard the program is or was because you never attended it so you're speaking from a position if ignorance tbh. You may have had some experiences with certain RMC grads that gave you a negative perception but I would challenge you to find any unit that doesn't have idiots in its ranks... even JTF2 has had some absolute zingers make it through šŸ˜‰
I guess its the same for RMC grads having no idea what OCTP officers' experiences are, especially now that the last of that breed is well into retirement.
What's 'fairy tale' about it? I got exposed to lots of Military concepts while studying at RMC. Way more than if I had gone to civilian university. I also had some pretty awesome professors with actual bona-fide Military credentials jncluding the former DCO of JTF2, TF Commanders overseas, etc... I also went to school with some pretty amazing people who went on to do some pretty impressive things and have bled for this Country.
By fairy tale I was pointing out that RMC is an artificial construct of military life that has long ago disappeared. The regimented system. The everyone living in quarters and having their whole day mapped out for them. The issue about having more exposure to military life than if you'd gone to civvy U cuts both ways. One of the great advantages of going to civvy U is broadening the experience of a young impressionable person to Canadian society in general. That problem applies equally to OCTP. effectively OCTP and RMC take a young person away from the general civilian society and put them into two separate development processes - OCTP with the practicalities of quickly working their way into their specific occupations while RMC takes them away from that for a large part of their time into a regimented academic system. There are pluses and minuses for both.
RMC is steeped in blood and it's built on the blood and sweat of thousands of everyday Canadians who took up the call.
Wow! That doesn't apply to all of us who joined?
The real thing I like about RMC is that it isn't like every other Ivy League prissy school where rich parents pay for their kids to attend. It's Canadians from all walks of life that are selected based off merit to become Officers in the Armed Forces. They come out of the program extremely fit, bilingual, with an education and a military bearing.
I think that applies equally to all of the officer candidate streams. During my years less than one in ten was accepted into OCTP. Admittedly bilingualism wasn't a thing then like now, and our education was more occupationally rather than academic focused, but our fitness and military bearing was there too.
Most of the hate regarding RMC comes from people who never went there. They hate it because they don't benefit from it so their reasons are usually 100% pure self-interest aka "selfishness".
Two of the bi-products of induced elitism are: a feeling of superiority over those who aren't "one of us"; and a feeling that everyone else hates you because deep down they envy you and your superiority.

Quite frankly, I value a university education, regardless of whether it comes from RMC or elsewhere - hell, even I got one when the time was right. No one hates RMC. Many of us just think that it is a waste of financial and human capital as it puts most of the officer leadership stream into one big basket. A system of ROTP civilian university graduates, OCTP-like graduates, commissioned from the ranks graduates and direct entry specialists provides a more flexible, responsive and balanced officer corps than a system based primarily on a stream of graduates of four years in an "elite" cloistered institution. And yes, I know that some of the other streams still exist in limited numbers, but - be honest - they aren't "one of us."

Let's face it, the current situation is the knee-jerk fallout of the Somalia affair and the recommendations of four university-based academics (two of them RMC grads) who, in 1997, recommended to then MND, Doug Young, that university degrees a la RMC will fix all those pesky leadership problems. Young pushed it forward in his Mar 1997 "Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces." (Incidentally - if anyone has a pdf copy of this please send it to me as I used to have one, can't find it and can't find it on the web). As one who had a minor role in the Somalia inquiry and watched how sausages were made from inside the factory, I have a very jaded view of much of the process and the fall out. The degreed officer concept - mostly effected through RMC - is just one of those.

šŸ»
 
I am perhaps unique in that I have both OCTP and Mil Col experience.

Neither are ā€œbetterā€- they are just different paths.

OCTP gets you in the door to do the actual job quicker, but will leave you with significant educational gaps that you will have to make up on your own time. This will impact you more and more, as you try to progress beyond Captain.

Mil Col delays you doing the actual job but gives you a good/excellent education; builds you a solid network of colleagues across the CAF (never underestimate that) and does put you through a crucible that tests you and pushes you well beyond the limits you thought you had (or, at least it used to). It probably helps you less as an Lt/Capt, but becomes more important as you progress higher in the CAF.
 
I am perhaps unique in that I have both OCTP and Mil Col experience.

Neither are ā€œbetterā€- they are just different paths.

OCTP gets you in the door to do the actual job quicker, but will leave you with significant educational gaps that you will have to make up on your own time. This will impact you more and more, as you try to progress beyond Captain.

Mil Col delays you doing the actual job but gives you a good/excellent education; builds you a solid network of colleagues across the CAF (never underestimate that) and does put you through a crucible that tests you and pushes you well beyond the limits you thought you had (or, at least it used to). It probably helps you less as an Lt/Capt, but becomes more important as you progress higher in the CAF.

Having a variety of paths is also probably a good way to build a diverse leadership cohort from people with a wide variety of experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
Let's face it, the current situation is the knee-jerk fallout of the Somalia affair and the recommendations of four university-based academics (two of them RMC grads) who, in 1997, recommended to then MND, Doug Young, that university degrees a la RMC will fix all those pesky leadership problems. Young pushed it forward in his Mar 1997 "Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces." (Incidentally - if anyone has a pdf copy of this please send it to me as I used to have one, can't find it and can't find it on the web). As one who had a minor role in the Somalia inquiry and watched how sausages were made from inside the factory, I have a very jaded view of much of the process and the fall out. The degreed officer concept - mostly effected through RMC - is just one of those.

šŸ»

As one who is also laudatory of his experience at CF Staff School, especially with regard to written communication, I find it odd that the report lists former MND Young's report to the PM in a footnote, but the link is not to the document referenced (as would be expected) but to testimony Mr. Young gave at a Commons' committee. This could lead one to assume that the Review Board may have been aware of Mr. Young's role in the degreed officer corps, but either did not find a copy of the report or could not be bothered to look, and so proceeded to comment about something they did not read. There appears to be several similar failings of minor staff duties in this document.

11 Young, D. (Minister of National Defence). (1997). Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Armed Forces. Ottawa: DND, Wednesday, February 12, 1997-com: National Defence (09).

I also thought that I had a pdf copy of the report, but haven't been able to find it. The closest I could find a listing for a paper copy is in the library at The Military Museums. LAC does list a copy in the fonds, but the access code marks it as closed.
 
Back
Top