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

Different degrees for different jobs

  • Thread starter Thread starter nathan_MB
  • Start date Start date
N

nathan_MB

Guest
Hello, I was talking to my recruiting officer because I am looking to become an Infantry Officer (  I am presently 17 years of age and waiting for my medical for entering the reserves) and was told that you could have a degree in any field in order to become an officer. My question is a degree in what? I am interested in Law and Political Science and would enjoy taking either of those. Is their certain degrees that would be more beneficial to my future plans? Thank you in advance.
 
A degree in Applied Ballistics with a minor in Crisis Management is always a safe bet  ;)

I got mine at FMU (Fire and Movement University).

.... OK I thought that was funny.

Alex
 
Are any degrees out there that are especially good for Infantry Officers? History?
 
Get a degree in something you are interested in.  Thats about the best advice there is.  There's nothing worse (University-wise) than being stuck in something you can't transfer out of easily, and don't enjoy at all. 

I studied engineering with a bunch of people who just wanted to become engineers because they thought it would give them a good paying job.  Some of them dropped out in first year (the smart ones of that group), and others completed their degree but hated every minute of it.
 
If you are interested in choosing a Combat Arms Officer as a career, I would advise you to take courses dealing with military science/history/strategic studies.   Some universities offer courses which cater specifically to military aspects (U of Calgary and U of New Brunswick come to mind), but if not, you should be able to tailor your interests within a more general political science/history setting.

Officership within the Army is a profession, not an occupation.   You join a small body of likewise professionals with a code of ethics, unique subculture, specialized body of knowledge, etc.   Your degree should be something that is professionally rewarding.   The school of thought that perceives leadership as an art (originally Prussian/German) believes that a grounding in military history and contemporary affairs is essential for grooming a highly professionalized Officer Corps.   This method was rewarded with the most professional Officer Corps in the world that was emulated to some degree by every other industrialized Army at the turn of the century.
The other school of thought, coming from French/American/and British trends, roughly viewed leadership as a science, sending its cadets to be trained in engineering or scientific disciplines.   This amatuer thinking fit well into military cultures obsessed with notions of "the invincible citizen soldier" (France, Canada), purchasing commissions (Britain), and little to no support for a peacetime Army (United States).

I have never understood why a a Degree in Zoology or Women's Studies or an MBA should be the qualifer for someone to command soldiers in battle.   Yes, an education bound only to military history will limit the abilities of an officer; there are many subdisciplines which are very applicable to war (literature, sociology, psychology, etc).   But command of combat troops clearly demands a body of knowledge based upon historical record as well as military theory.   Other professions are no less demanding (ie: you can't walk into Med School without a firm grounding in life sciences).   An education like this should prepare an Officer for more rigerous studies later in his career (Staff College, etc)
 
Of course the whole idea of needing a degree in anything to become an officer is totally lost on me,same as having officers only as pilots.
 
The purpose of the degree is just to teach you to think at a level beyond what you are thaught to think in high school.  Unless you are going into a technical trade, the degree is not a primer for the work you will be doing.  Pick something you are interested in.
 
Ah perfect. I like woman's studies. Not that I really care about the struggles of woman's right to vote, or stuff like that. I just like the idea of being the only guy in the class....hmmmmm.

For real, I think I will look into the Royal Military College, if I am not too old, or I will look into some kind of program that Infranteer mentioned.
 
Of course the whole idea of needing a degree in anything to become an officer is totally lost on me

If one looks to a degree as a glorified trade certificate, which unfortunately seems to be more and more prevalent today, then yes, there is no real point.

However, the degree should act as a grounding in the historical and theoretical principles of war, the specialized nature around which is formed the military profession.   That is what I am arguing here, that we shouldn't just grab any degree willy-nilly, waiting for Phase Training and our Platoon Warrants to teach us everything about Command.  A proper military education should be ever present and constantly expanding throughout an Officer's career; 200 years of success in war has shown this way of approaching professionalism to be the desired choice.

And what I am saying should not strictly apply to the Army, either.  Despite the more technical/managerial nature of a commission in the Navy or the Air Force, there is still much to desire in the grasp of Naval or Air Doctrine and Operations.  In one journal article I read, there was a brilliant quote that stated that the Air Force, with its excessive demand for some sort of Aeronautical technical degree, was in danger of becoming a mob of glorified truckers.  Sure they were very proficent in the technical aspects of the airframe they would fly in, but they had no background in conceptions of Air Power or tactical and strategic doctrine.

same as having officers only as pilots.

I seem to remember Sergeants and Warrant Officers flying in the RCAF in WWII.  Can anyone confirm this?

Perhaps their should be to kinds of pilots.  All start out with a two year stint in the ranks.
One type of program will train pilots that commit simply to flying, they will be promoted to Sergeant upon completion of their Flight Training.
The other program will train Officers that commit to the professional Officer Corps of the Air Force.  Not only will they fly, but they will dedicate themselves to the operational and strategic demands of Air Power.  They go into a commission willingly knowing they will not pilot an aircraft for most of their career.

The purpose of the degree is just to teach you to think at a level beyond what you are thaught to think in high school.  Unless you are going into a technical trade, the degree is not a primer for the work you will be doing.  Pick something you are interested in.

I would venture that the purpose of a Degree (Especially a Liberal Arts Degree) is to give you new tools to critically analyse and respond to ideas and events that happen around you.  With that in mind, a University education can provide great benefits to anyone in any position; that is why you will probably see a person with an English Literature degree succeed at a mid-to-senior level management position at a large corporation (My Father runs a successful company; he dropped out of highschool and his senior exec has a PhD in Chemistry, neither really applicable to running a sound business).

That being said, I believe that the profession of the Military Officer demands a firm grounding in military history and theory; it is, simply, the bread and butter of the profession.  This is what Scharnhorst had in mind when he created the first real Military Academy at the beginning of the 19th century in Berlin (that all Academies have somehow emulated).  Even today, I believe the CF recognizes this fact, demanding OPME requirements for junior officers be met prior to attending Staff College.  It is an effort to level out the varying levels of education in the military profession that are present within the Officer Corps.
Though many brillent men will rise from the ranks or successfully command troops without any formal education; Clausewitz never had any education past highschool, Napoleon was an Artillery Corporal, Chesty Puller rose from the rank of Private to become a legend in the Marine Corps, these soldiers of military genius pop up randomly and periodically; maintaining an amateur Officer Corps while waiting for one to show up in crunch time can leave an Army in defeat (As the Prussians found out at Jena in 1806).  By demanding the utmost of your Officers, in educational as well as operational capabilities, you raise the bar as a whole and can ensure victory in war.
 
Infanteer said:
I seem to remember Sergeants and Warrant Officers flying in the RCAF in WWII.  Can anyone confirm this?

Yep.  My great uncle was a Spitfire pilot, got his wings as a Sgt, and worked his way up to F/O.  The US army currently has WO's flying helicopters, as well.
 
Yep.   My great uncle was a Spitfire pilot, got his wings as a Sgt, and worked his way up to F/O.

Thanks for confirming that; I knew I seen it somewhere.

The US army currently has WO's flying helicopters, as well.

Remember, however, that US Warrant Officers are Officers, as opposed to our Warrant Officers, which are NCO's.   If I can recall correctly, they fill a unique space between enlisted troops and commissioned officers in that they are technical officers; they are saluted, they eat in the officers mess, etc, etc.   I think Old Guy explained it here that they decided to make Warrant Officer pilots in Vietnam after the Army realized that it had more Officer's flying aircraft then the Air Force did.
 
As far as a usefull degree that would aid combat arms pers. (ncm/officer), have you considered a degree in Geography (human/physical)? The ability to read topographic maps, utilize GPS, and be able to analyze air photo's and different data (satellite/etc) would come in very very handy..
 
Infanteer said:
Though many brillent men will rise from the ranks or successfully command troops without any formal education; Clausewitz never had any education past highschool, Napoleon was an Artillery Corporal, Chesty Puller rose from the rank of Private to become a legend in the Marine Corps,

Actually, Napoleon had a formal training has an Artillery Officer at the École militaire royale de Paris.    He started his military career has a second lieutenant.
 
Actually, Napoleon had a formal training has an Artillery Officer at the École militaire royale de Paris.  He started his military career has a second lieutenant.

Yeesh.  Looks like I need to hit the books on the Napoleonic Wars, right now my knowledge is minimal on that subject.  Thanks for the correction, though I figure that my point still stands that Napoleon rose from a low rank to command through his military genius, not through any excellence within the organization of the French Revolutionary Army. 
 
Back
Top