The utility of three military colleges, funded undergrad degrees; Officer trg & the need for a degre

[Pieman]

Or better yet, turn RMC into a Sandhurst 1-year program for all Officer entry plans.

I also support that concept. I see no valid reason to have the military educate an Officer from square 1. Let them get a degree from elsewhere first, then come into a Military college where they can concentrate the curriculum with *gasp* military related topics. Additional to this, there will not be the 'RMC Officer' vs 'Civilian Officer' culture that seems to exists. Quote from a Captain I was under,  "People who DEO are not real officers."

Having been stuck under officers who came from RMC vs. Civilian University and then joined, I would take the officer who went to civilian university any day. For all the RMC officers I encountered, 99% of them had a horrible attitude towards their subordinates. I say this because even as a no-hook I could speak and exchange information with my troop officers from a civilian University. An Officer from RMC would only see my *rank* and not take me seriously. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Those who did take the time to listen and speak to me found that I had a hell of a lot more to say than that is considered the norm for a guy in my rank.

 

[George Wallace]

What other organization recruits its leadership out of High School?

 

[blacktriangle]

Careful George...the black helicopters are prepping for take off!

(Ok...they aren't black, and most of them are probably NS)

 

[Jed]

One of the purposes behind bringing in young OCdts at 17 or 18 (at least in a bygone era) was to begin the proper molding of the military ethos prior to those unfavourable corrupting civi traits being picked up out in Civi land. There is a lot to be said for that approach because it does tend to focus YO's along the preferred enlightenment path without a lot of fuss and bother.

 

[blacktriangle]

unfavourable corrupting civi traits being picked up out in Civi land

Like what? Sex, drugs and rock and roll?

Better get them earlier than 17-18.

 

[Pieman]

To add to a lot of the banter I see regarding statements to the effect: "Having a degree doesn't make you smart." ,  "You don't need it for the Army.", and "This Lt we had didn't know..."

Take a 24 year old who joined the army fresh out of high school, and a 24 year old who spent four years in University and then joined the army. Have a conversation with them. Compare.  The 24 year old who spent his whole time in he army will have a very narrow perspective. He will know his job, he will know army life, and he will have some first order ideas. What I mean my 'first order' is he won't have a concept beyond what he sees directly in front of him (life in the regiment) 

The 24 year old who spent his time in university will have a breadth of information. He will have a perspective that encompasses many concepts beyond the military. He will come to you with n-th order ideas, in other words they will encompass well beyond the day to day problems of the regiment.

Who is the better soldier? The 24 year old who joined since high school.
Who is the better leader? The 24  year old who can solve real far reaching problems and handle the complications of dealing with a government organization.

 

[Pieman]

One of the purposes behind bringing in young OCdts at 17 or 18 (at least in a bygone era) was to begin the proper molding of the military ethos prior to those unfavourable corrupting civi traits being picked up out in Civi land. There is a lot to be said for that approach because it does tend to focus YO's along the preferred enlightenment path without a lot of fuss and bother.

The type of people that go through university are generally not the type of people you can't trust not to go out and get arrested on the weekend. Unlike 18 -24 and sometimes up to 35 year olds you see in the NCM ranks.

( I recall my chain of command reminding our troop before each weekend not to go out and get too drunk and get arrested. I honestly found that so insulting when I was in at first, but then I realized it seemed to be necessary because sure enough, someone would.)

 

[agc]

I like Infanteer's earlier suggestion of a mandatory one-year Sandhurst-esque term for all OCdt's. This would be great start for all cadets regardless of entry plan (DEO, ROTP, UTPNCM, CEOTP). The term could start with the recruit week, FYOP, the school semesters, then finish with the completion of BMOQ. The school studies would focus on CF related courses (OPME's, Elemental specific courses, and whatever other junior officer courses are beneficial) and no general studies courses would be taught. BMOQ is of similar length to a school term and there is definitely a lot of information digested during that time. There could be 5 "courses" that are applied to the cadet's transcript for successful completion of BMOQ (Personal Health and Fitness, Introduction to the CF: Customs, History, and Structure, Intro to Applied Leadership and Teamwork, Military Drill, or whatever courses coudl be construed from the BMOQ syllabus).

I doubt that an extra year of basic training for in service selection plans or RMC ROTP students would be useful in any way.

Since all cadets would have to attend RMC for the first year, it should dissuade some of the candidates that are applying solely for the education. It would also help to identify the weaker cadets and weed them out faster than if they were at a civilian university.

Shouldn't the selection process itself take care of this?  Not saying that it does necessarily, but it should.

In the second-year cadets would transfer to civy university schools to complete degrees (except for candidates completing degrees in military studies who would stay at RMC). The CF could arrange agreements with certain universities that the 15 credits acquired on RMC transcripts will be accepted as core/elective transfer credits depending on the program of study. In addition the military training provided in the summers of future years would be accepted as transfer/internship credits. Some degrees (engineering) have few electives and the cadets would still have to attend for a full 4 years. Other degree programs (maybe a specially desinged Public Policy degree majoring in Defence Management??) could have one to two years shaved off the degree completion time and could be available as soon as three years after being sworn in with a bachelor's degree.

I doubt a lot of these civilian universities will grant credits for environmental training, drill or health and fitness.  Also, some of them may not extend their admissions for the extra year that the civvy-u applicants would require.  The extra time and co-ordination here would probably mean a lot of offers eventually being rescinded.

This would provide cadets with more military experience right from the start, decrease the wait time before commissioning, and still provide a cost savings to the CF (through RMC focusing non military studies and basically outsourcing general studies, and money saved on tuition through phase training and OPME's that the Officers should be completing anyways).

An extra year tacked on the beginning will not decrease the wait time before commissioning or save any money.  In fact, it will cost extra money to build the facilities at RMC to do the extra training you want to have there.  And it will cost more again to move cadets to civvy-u after first year.  Also, none of the training you proposed equates to any real on job experience.

 

[aesop081]

  The 24  year old who can solve real far reaching problems and handle the complications of dealing with a government organization.

......but can't tie their own boot laces.

Those 24-year olds ?

 

[blacktriangle]

To add to a lot of the banter I see regarding statements to the effect: "Having a degree doesn't make you smart." ,  "You don't need it for the Army.", and "This Lt we had didn't know..."

Take a 24 year old who joined the army fresh out of high school, and a 24 year old who spent four years in University and then joined the army. Have a conversation with them. Compare.  The 24 year old who spent his whole time in he army will have a very narrow perspective. He will know his job, he will know army life, and he will have some first order ideas. What I mean my 'first order' is he won't have a concept beyond what he sees directly in front of him (life in the regiment) 

The 24 year old who spent his time in university will have a breadth of information. He will have a perspective that encompasses many concepts beyond the military. He will come to you with n-th order ideas, in other words they will encompass well beyond the day to day problems of the regiment.

Who is the better soldier? The 24 year old who joined since high school.
Who is the better leader? The 24  year old who can solve real far reaching problems and handle the complications of dealing with a government organization.

I hope you are generalizing...

 

[Strike]

Having been stuck under officers who came from RMC vs. Civilian University and then joined, I would take the officer who went to civilian university any day. For all the RMC officers I encountered, 99% of them had a horrible attitude towards their subordinates. I say this because even as a no-hook I could speak and exchange information with my troop officers from a civilian University. An Officer from RMC would only see my *rank* and not take me seriously. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Those who did take the time to listen and speak to me found that I had a hell of a lot more to say than that is considered the norm for a guy in my rank.

I hope you're generalizing here as well.  Being a milcol-type, and working with several others, of whom I have seen how much their subordinates look up to them, I think you have been painting with very broad strokes my dear.

 

[Maxadia]

There seems to be a lot of that from both sides of the equation here. 

Perhaps, seeing as we keep going round and round and round, maybe this topic should be split so that everyone who either thinks that officers couldn't POSSIBLY exist without degrees and everyone who thinks that officers having degrees is the most USELESS thing they have heard of, can have their own discussion. (there's my broad strokes to add to the pile ) 

Seeing as there's been no official talk of removing the ROTP program, then the initial discussion on the feasibility of having three military colleges could continue. Because I don't see them all disappearing anytime soon.

 

[Pieman]

......but can't tie their own boot laces.

Those 24-year olds ?

Yea, they can't tie their own show laces....  : I often find that the NCM who speaks out about officers in such a manner are the most narrow minded. The 24 year old educated man coming to you is not as tuned in to the day to day functions of the regiment. That's the job of the NCM. He has bigger problems on his mind. The NCM sees that and interprits that the person has no idea what is going on. The reality is, he is not concerned about what color PT strip your troop decided to wear today.

I hope you are generalizing...

I hope you're generalizing here as well.  Being a milcol-type, and working with several others, of whom I have seen how much their subordinates look up to them, I think you have been painting with very broad strokes my dear.

I am generalizing to what I consider to be the bulk of the population. Yes, there are expections to what I am saying, but my experience had so few of them that I don't consider them to be significant. It is like people saying 'There are people in NCM who have a PhD." There are. But, they are statistically so insignificant compared to the bulk of the population. i.e. They do not represent the real picture.  Additionally, I am speaking through my own personal experience, so there is that level of bias to consider. However, how many NCM have you met that speak beyond what they see in front of their face? Very few.

 

[armyvern]

Pieman,

Experience please? That is what you are basing your "general, but bulk" conclusion upon.

In my 23 years, MOST of the NCMs I've had the pleasure of working and interacting with have been quite capable of "seeing beyond their face".

 

[Maxadia]

......but can't tie their own boot laces.

Those 24-year olds ?

Well, I know ONE way to improve the CFAT..... ;D

 

[Pieman]

In my 23 years, MOST of the NCMs I've had the pleasure of working and interacting with have been quite capable of "seeing beyond their face".

In my five years, I have *very few* such interactions. You mean I would have to stick around for another 18 years to the experience something similar to what you have had? No thanks.

 

[aesop081]

That's the job of the NCM.

I'm quite sure that i know what my job is.

He has bigger problems on his mind.

I'm also quite sure that i know what, over the years, has been on the minds of my officers. I am quite sure i know what is on my Captain's mind these days, since i assist and advise him on what he's doing.

The reality is, he is not concerned about what color PT strip your troop decided to wear today.

I am not too concerned about that either. Lately, i have been much more concerned with coordinating national policy with another government agency.

No disrespect to your 5 years of good service but do not be so pretentious as to tell me what my job is. You cannot even begin to understand it yourself.

 

[George Wallace]

The type of people that go through university are generally not the type of people you can't trust not to go out and get arrested on the weekend. Unlike 18 -24 and sometimes up to 35 year olds you see in the NCM ranks.

( I recall my chain of command reminding our troop before each weekend not to go out and get too drunk and get arrested. I honestly found that so insulting when I was in at first, but then I realized it seemed to be necessary because sure enough, someone would.)

Ummmmmm!  London Ontario.......University students.......RIOT.......just weeks ago.......Sorry, university has no claim to being any different than any other segment of youth.  They drink to excess.  They brawl.  They do stupid things.  Being in any university does not exempt them from being stupid.

 

[aesop081]

However, how many NCM have you met that speak beyond what they see in front of their face? Very few.

I am educated (from RMC of all places), i have completed all the OPMEs, I have completed Air Force Officer Development 2 & 3 (RCAF officer courses), a long time ago i completed the Intermediate Tactics Course part 1 (an Army officer course). I am currently employed at a unit where my duties involved providing strategic-level products and liaise with other national and international agencies for the purpose of coordinating and making national policy.

Is that far enough from "in front of my face" for you ?

I could introduce you to a few of my Corporals who's speaking abilities and CF/GoC knowledge would make you eat crow.

 

[Pieman]

I'm also quite sure that i know what, over the years, has been on the minds of my officers. I am quite sure i know what is on my Captain's mind these days, since i assist and advise him on what he's doing.

Do you help them tie their shoes? From your comments it sounds like you need to do that for them sometimes.

No disrespect to your 5 years of good service but do not be so pretentious at to tell me what my job is. You cannot even begin to understand it yourself.

No disrespect your your years of service either. I will say that your particular current position is more complicated than the bulk of NCM positions and no doubt required a great deal of training beyond a regular troop WO position. Training that required a great deal of mental focus, study, and a course that had a fairly high failure rate as it requires more intellectual capability than most NCM WO positions. What I am saying is that I would consider you one of the NCM on the more capable end of the spectrum not part of the bulk of the population.