Meanwhile, it's a good thing Canada has such a laser-like focus on serious post-grad PME for its officers.
Guessing you haven't seen a textbook, let alone a staff college curriculum in decades.

Meanwhile, it's a good thing Canada has such a laser-like focus on serious post-grad PME for its officers.
I'm thinking of all the bitching on threads here, which often produces two main and somewhat opposed streams of thought: that "war studies" is a cop-out not held in high esteem by some; and "do we really need university-educated officers?" for some others. I suppose you and I would fall into the former group. My impression - stipulated, it could be mistaken - is that Canada has its work cut out for it to even reach the pre-Trump levels of post-grad education met by the US military, which, even if particular doors are closed, will still continue to seek post-grad education. If only the energy spent fretting about the US could be channeled into productive advocacy to improve our own back yard.Guessing you haven't seen a textbook, let alone a staff college curriculum in decades.
Interestingly when I applied for law school the application process looked for a broad diversity of pre-law education as preferred. It wasn't just humanities, it extended to hard sciences, politics and theoretical studies. The belief was that a broad education developed the critical thinking necessary for a proper foundation of a legal education.Meanwhile, it's a good thing Canada has such a laser-like focus on serious post-grad PME for its officers.
Ridiculous. Public schools are as capable of delivering shoddy education, especially in the US. So are "grievance studies" programs. There is a huge gulf between those and traditional humanities.If conservatives truly want to have critical thinking blossom then get rid of all religious based private Grade 1-12 education. But Oh! No! that would put paid to most of the Charter schools publicly funded down south.
I'm thinking of all the bitching on threads here, which often produces two main and somewhat opposed streams of thought: that "war studies" is a cop-out not held in high esteem by some; and "do we really need university-educated officers?" for some others. I suppose you and I would fall into the former group. My impression - stipulated, it could be mistaken - is that Canada has its work cut out for it to even reach the pre-Trump levels of post-grad education met by the US military,
which, even if particular doors are closed, will still continue to seek post-grad education. If only the energy spent fretting about the US could be channeled into productive advocacy to improve our own back yard.
Ability will not out if its been formed by a decade of propaganda. Yes some may escape their indoctrination, most will succumb to it.Ability will out; what matters is 11-12 - particularly 12 as the launch point into post-sec - and whether or not the post-secondary education is crippled by political activism.
You know where you see the government demanding that military officers and senior bureaucrats only attend party approved schools? Authoritarian regimes like China.
I’m out of CAF now but both respectful and envious of the funded education options. I’m doing my master’s now and there’s a CAF officer whose job for two years is to complete the same program. I’d do shameful things for an opportunity like that, instead of booking it from work to class once a week and juggling a toddler during readings in the evening.
I think you should also look at France and the UK. In France, if you wish to become a senior bureaucrat, you have to go to specific universities, depending on the department you wish to work in. It's not quite as clear for England, but if you wish to make it to secretary or under-secretary level, you'd better have gotten a first (or at max a second) from Oxford or Cambridge. You get a first from LSU? Forget it, they don't think LSU is a university.![]()
There is no doubt that many universities cater to what many consider basket weaving 101 courses. That's because in any organization truly dedicated to education you want to explore the boundaries. MAGA doesn't want that.
Ok yeah, looks like this is probably going to be more broadly applicable. What a self-defeating move by DoD.
The email is within JAG but refers to a Dept of War direction. Interestingly I read the caution going to the UFLEP program people as "friendly advice" warning them of the poisoned atmosphere and the possibility that their self funded schooling may not be recognized by DOD down the road.
I think the OJAG is as aghast at this as anyone (except maybe the MAGA/Trumpists that exist in all organizations down there)
![]()
While the War Department announced cessation of academic relations with Harvard, the secretary said in the coming weeks, the department and military services would evaluate similar relationships with other schools.
"[We] will evaluate all existing graduate programs for active-duty service members at all Ivy League universities and other civilian universities," he said. "The goal is to determine whether or not they actually deliver cost-effective strategic education for future senior leaders when compared to, say, public universities and our military graduate programs."
I must have lived a unique life. I have managed to pretty much escape, in my public and private life, religious people who are "indoctrinated". The sea in which I swim is almost entirely of university-educated people. Almost to a man/woman those whom I know to be religious have been moderate centrists and conservatives, mostly about their family lives, many liberal about bigger social issues (eg. public social welfare programs). I find it impossible to credit that my experience has somehow been unique. I concluded long ago that the idea of the narrow-minded university-educated religious zealot poisoning public discourse is a myth. The narrow-minded university-educated leftist zealot poisoning public discourse, though - plenty of those.Ability will not out if its been formed by a decade of propaganda. Yes some may escape their indoctrination, most will succumb to it.
Not a chance, in the world of post-secondary education in the US.The fact is conservative political activism exists just as much as the political activism that the conservatives despise.
That framing improperly inverts the situation. Overwhelmingly, progressives advance new propositions and conservatives oppose. It is obvious by inspection that on most campuses, progressives are systematically favoured. They do not really have to contend with being shouted down by protestors or have their events cancelled because the administration fears a "security risk".If there wasn't conservative activism then guys like Charlie Kirk would have been out of a job. Let's call a spade a spade. The problem isn't that there is political activism in universities; the problem is that it's political activism that opposes the Right.
That may be the centre of your universe, particularly if your personal preference would be to adjust scores by institutional reputation. Some people just don't think the qual is worth much.You are massively misunderstanding what the criticism is.
What people complain about is that those folks get the same SCRIT points as everybody else.
Why wouldn't CFC work count as credits?But instead of actually doing a full load of classes like any normal grad student, half their credits are from CFC.
Clearly you have a beef about SCRIT scoring, but that policy is just a nudge. It isn't the fundamental principle about what kind of post-sec education should be necessary or acceptable.My American colleagues would actually get more SCRIT points for their STEM degrees or for attending more prestigious schools on recognized programs (like a Fulbright or Rhodes Scholar). I got the same points (1 pt) for my two STEM degrees as my buddy who did a part time MA at Carleton. And an even bigger complaint is Second Language is worth 4 pts on the SCRIT.
Sure, but the US government isn't demanding attendance only at party-approved schools. What they're proposing is to limit financial aid for those choosing to attend selected institutions.You know where you see the government demanding that military officers and senior bureaucrats only attend party approved schools? Authoritarian regimes like China.
Clearly you have a beef about SCRIT scoring,
That may be the centre of your universe,
Why wouldn't CFC work count as credits?
Sure, but the US government isn't demanding attendance only at party-approved schools.
What has been reported about the policy is clear. As always, there is a universe of speculations about malign motives to be imagined.Sure bud..... That's why the SecDef is literally putting out videos complaining about DEI.... Guess you can only attend schools that the administration doesn't deem to teach DEI, a standard they arbitrarily decide.
The absurdity of your example of the need to incorporate "climate change" into military thinking stands by itself. Attempting to recalibrate goalposts won't change that.And judging by our conversation here, apparently a lecture or two on the impacts of climate change is all it takes to trigger some snowflake to claim "WOKE!".
What has been reported about the policy is clear. As always, there is a universe of speculations about malign motives to be imagined.
The absurdity of your example of the need to incorporate "climate change" into military thinking stands by itself. Attempting to recalibrate goalposts won't change that.
We are literally shaping our defence policy in the Arctic because of climate change. We would be idiots not to incorporate it into military thinking.
