Are you at CFRG ?
I am involved, logistically, in the new Naval BMQ that's burgeoning. I think its a great idea and should produce sea going sailors quickly.
What are you thoughts, or point of view from the CFRG ?
I'm in a Centre but posted out west this summer.
My thoughts for Naval BMQ is go for it. I did a NavRes BMOQ and it was amazing. Divisions named after our three carriers instead of numbered platoons. All the ranks were naval aside from a few support staff. And when we finished we went straight into MARS 2 (or whatever NETP is called now) with the same cohort.
There is also and Airforce BMQ coming as well. With the numbers we are expecting for SIP this year we're going to need a lot of more BMQ's more geographically distributed again. I expect closer to 10'000 recruits as this years numbers for SIP, which is 3000 more than what we just did. It's going to be a very heavy lift for everyone involved.
The real question is what is the CFAT (and other ‘aptitude’ tests) actually based off of?
In CFAT's case, decades of data that follows pers through their initial trades training. CFAT was in effect for over 30 years. They would adjust it every once in a while depending on their data. It was designed to help predict success for applicants up to the completion of their initial trades training. The Pers Selection Officers would pull all that data from pers files, look at success/failure rates and try to control for variables that were not CFAT related (VW due to family emergencies or whatever).
Seems to me like someone just decided arbitrarily where the line in the sand should be drawn even though I have met people who can do those jobs without said ‘aptitude’. Clearly it isn’t a be all to end all as well as otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to take the test more than once.
I think it would make more sense to be easier to cull those who can’t make it in training than to use a test to cull potential troops before given the chance.
It may have started a little arbitrary, but after 30 years they thought they had it relatively dialed in. But there are a lot of other factors involved like proven performance overrides predictive performance. If you have a Degree in Engineering its much more accurate at predicting success as an engineering officer than a CFAT.
What's really needed is a specific type of CFAT to the trades you're applying.
CFAT had different cut offs for different trades. Infantry required the minimum total score but it also had a minimum math score (for the simple logistics and navigation required at a Pte level). Cook was the minimum score no specifics in math/language/spacial, however Cook at one point (not anymore) required Gr12 math, because the Cook trade was getting MCpl who could do the budgets/order sizes for a kitchen.
The selection process currently relies heavily on education as the first filter. Every trade has Entry Standards (Education/experience standards). that are promulgated. If you've finished high school you're IDEAL combat arms ES. If you only have Gr 10 you're ACCEPTABLE combat arms. Essentially the ES is saying if you finished HS there is no reason you can't learn any of the combat arms skills.
It gets more convoluted with some of the technical trades. Weapons Eng Techs need advanced/college level maths and physics/sciences, with multiple different combinations depending on if they were college or university stream students. By and large we're supposing that the education systems of the various provinces have given the baseline needed. Is it ideal? No. But its pretty good.
The Big Green Machine needs food, and putting the CFAT back will slow that feeding down. Sorry but needs must with all the disadvantages and problems that causes, the alternative is worse. The training system will have to flex.
