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

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
Pieman said:
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.

I will also disagree here Pieman.

The cloistered 24 year old officer who sees little outside the Regimental Lines is an artifact of long ago times when you literally could not leave the lines. Today's officers and NCM's are hooked up almost 24/7 to the Internet (for good or ill) and can access and process huge amounts of information. Now we can kvetch that much of this information may actually be Facebook postings or World of Warcraft, but in the civi world we see much of the same level of interest or discourse from the people we meet.

OTOH a degreed officer may actually have a very narrow view because that is how he/she was educated. "Victim studies" (Woman's studies, Gender studies, Aboriginal Studies, Queer studies etc.) are pretty notorious for enforcing a rigid world view on their students, but judging from other examples from Universities (suppression of speech when it is "offensive", use of brownshirt tactics to stop guest speakers from making presentations, pushing agendas like "climate change" and so on), getting a broad perspective doesn't always seem to be the desired outcome. Now this isn't 100% of the cases by any means (and frankly, most people who get indoctrinated like that rarely join the CF anyway, based on my unscientific recollections of officer candidates I have taught over the years), so generalization is difficult.

Perhaps what we need is to quantify what it is we actually want out of the educated officer corps (and for that matter, everyone else). Broad perspectives and flexibility of thought and attitude are very desirable traits, but is University level education necessarily the best means of instilling that in a person?
 
Spectrum said:
If we accept that degrees are needed for all officers, .......

Actually, this is not a result of the CF, but of the Government who think that all their senior 'Bureaucrats'/'managers' should have a Degree.  This indicates that the Government doesn't look at the CF needing leaders, but managers/bureaucrats.  Therein lies the rub.
 
The degreed officer corps was a CF initiative, not a GoC initiative.  In the mid 1990s a series of studies was done on behalf of the MND by a group of academics including Bercusson, Granatstein and Morton.  Following those studies and based on the advice provided a CF decision was made.

 
Regardless, there is a need for a degreed officer corps. Why?  Because that is what the CF currently states as its need.

We can keep coming back to this over and over again, but the degreed corps is here to stay for the time being, and whether or not we personally think we need one is not the topic of this thread.
 
Pieman said:
Regarding OPME courses, I discovered all you have to do is figure out where the search function is in Adobe reader and you can pass one of their exams. Demonstrated by a MCpl who was writing test at same time as me. He did well without even reading the material....but that is another point.

I'm sorry to come back to this but, you are a ***** !!

I dare you to use CTRL-F in Adobe reader to produce the papers/essays that need to be written (at least when i did them) for some of those OPMEs.
 
Perhaps what we need is to quantify what it is we actually want out of the educated officer corps (and for that matter, everyone else). Broad perspectives and flexibility of thought and attitude are very desirable traits, but is University level education necessarily the best means of instilling that in a person?

A very good question there.
 
I'm sorry to come back to this but, you are a ***** !!

I dare you to use CTRL-F in Adobe reader to produce the papers/essays that need to be written (at least when i did them) for some of those OPMEs.

Sorry you feel that way. However, I did two OPME courses online. First one I actually studied and read...then I discovered the Cntr-F function and it was like getting a education at a ATM machine. They were not much more difficult than a first year university course, if that. Barf up information you read recently. Otherwise use cntrl-F.

Can't speak for any of the essays as courses I took did not have them.

I'm not saying it's not work. But, it's not exactly testing the limits of intellectual capacity either.

 
Pieman, you took the 2 easy ones. The remaining 4 are university level courses and I believe grant partial credits.
 
Pieman, you took the 2 easy ones. The remaining 4 are university level courses and I believe grant partial credits.
Did I? Which ones are the easy ones exactly?
 
Pieman said:
Did I? Which ones are the easy ones exactly?

The ones you can Ctrl-F and pass? DCE001 and DCE002 are weekend courses and use a question bank to randomly generate questions. All the others except history grant 1 credit at RMC and require essays submitted on a schedule. History even PLARs a mod for your ILQ.
 
The ones you can Ctrl-F and pass? DCE001 and DCE002 are weekend courses and use a question bank to randomly generate questions. All the others except history grant 1 credit at RMC and require essays submitted on a schedule. History even PLARs a mod for your ILQ.
Got it. I see your point and they do get more difficult after the first two.

 
Does anyone know the actual cost of an RMC student vs civi U ?..    And for that matter marginal cost of adding each additional???

Is it not possible that RMC gets large government grants (the same as other universities) etc and pays full student fees at a CIVI university..... which may be potentially more.    Only about 20% of the cost of a University education is paid for by student fees. 

And... the salary paid to University students in the reserves over the summer up to 4 months....... would it be that much different than what is paid to RMC students after room and board  deducted etc.

DEO officers need to get the second language, and other military courses etc that are done by RMC students once they join up, as do many of the Civ U folks......

What are the numbers that leave under ROTP in RMC and Civi U???  And after minimal service required???
Are those leaving from RMC ones that would stick it out at Civi U and then simply wait out the time and not give a great effort???

I truly do not know the answer to all of these questions, but think that having a Military College should be invaluable in having the best and brightest of young women and men an opportunity in the military and the exposure to it full tilt.

If I ran the zoo.....

- All programs with the exception of nursing etc not offered would be strictly at St Jean and RMC.  Very few Civi U offerings.

- All first year ( and second for CEGEP) would stay at St Jean for first year.  Trained and heavily involved with staff from the Mega and Vandoos that I think would be invaluable and give them a much better appreciation of all members of CF... both official languages etc.

- Where possible try to co-ordinate offering nursing etc in co-ordiantion with Queens University.  Have ROTP involved extensively with RMC.

- Find some way to limit or prevent individuals from getting one year of university paid with no intention of completing degree or serving........      Perhaps if leave by January 1st no pay back... if after 50% paid back???

- increase the opportunity and availability for NCMs to apply.

- Increase the number of cadets at RMC as all first years at St Jean and renovations done at residence building for start of next year.

I know that there will be  many who will not agree .... but just a few thoughts ...


 
Perhaps what we need is to quantify what it is we actually want out of the educated officer corps (and for that matter, everyone else). Broad perspectives and flexibility of thought and attitude are very desirable traits, but is University level education necessarily the best means of instilling that in a person?

Pieman said:
A very good question there.

I'm afraid I've run out of smarts here. Can anyone suggest an answer?
 
Yup,....one stream of soldier, but that's for another thread.
 
If anyone wants to know about OPME, or what's happening at DCS, you might want to ask me.

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/105553/post-1135674/topicseen.html#new
 
If we want to train for skills, we have lots of models to follow. Community collegeand our own skills trainingmodels work wonders. OTOH, if the purpose of Military College (or any institution of higher learning) is supposed to instill smarts and critical thinking, maybe there is a different way to go about it. This sort of research hasn't been fully replicated, but if it does work the results will be astounding:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/iq-points-for-sale-cheap.html?_r=1

I.Q. Points for Sale, Cheap
By DAVID Z. HAMBRICK
Published: May 5, 2012

A STRIKING trend in today’s culture is the pursuit of rapid cognitive enhancement. The idea behind many popular video and online “brain-training” games is that practicing tasks that strengthen memory, attention and other mental processes will make you a smarter person.

Nintendo markets its Brain Age game as a “treadmill for the mind.” Lumosity, which claims 20 million users, says that its brain-training games offer “real-world cognitive benefits in individuals of all ages.” Cogmed, which has been adopted by schools in the United States and Sweden, helps its users “unlock their natural cognitive abilities by training their brain.” Forbes magazine recently declared cognitive enhancement the next “trillion-dollar industry.” The United States military is even exploring the possibility of using such cognitive training to increase soldiers’ capacities.

Why the craze? Until recently, the overwhelming consensus in psychology was that intelligence was essentially a fixed trait. But in 2008, an article by a group of researchers led by Susanne Jaeggi and Martin Buschkuehl challenged this view and renewed many psychologists’ enthusiasm about the possibility that intelligence was trainable — with precisely the kind of tasks that are now popular as games.

Yet I and many other intelligence researchers are skeptical of this research. Before anyone spends any more time and money looking for a quick and easy way to boost intelligence, it’s important to explain why we’re not sold on the idea.

In the Jaeggi study, the researchers began by having participants complete a test of reasoning to measure their “fluid” intelligence — the ability to draw connections between things, solve novel problems and adapt to new situations. Then some of the participants received up to eight hours of training in a difficult cognitive task that required paying careful attention to two streams of information (a version of this task is now marketed by Lumosity); others were assigned to a control group and received no such training. Then all of the participants took a different version of the reasoning test.

The results were startling. The authors reported that the trained participants showed a larger gain in the reasoning test than the control group did, and despite the relatively brief period of training, this gain was large enough that it would be expected to substantially improve performance in everyday life.

Does this sound like an extraordinary claim? It should. There have been many attempts to demonstrate large, lasting gains in intelligence through educational interventions, with few successes. When gains in intelligence have been achieved, they have been modest and the result of many years of effort.

For instance, in a University of North Carolina study known as the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project, children received an intensive educational intervention from infancy to age 5 designed to increase intelligence. In follow-up tests, these children showed an advantage of six I.Q. points over a control group (and as adults, they were four times more likely to graduate from college). By contrast, the increase implied by the findings of the Jaeggi study was six I.Q. points after only six hours of training — an I.Q. point an hour.

Though the Jaeggi results are intriguing, many researchers have failed to demonstrate statistically significant gains in intelligence using other, similar cognitive training programs, like Cogmed’s. The Web site PsychFileDrawer.org, which was founded as an archive for failed replication attempts in psychological research, maintains a Top 20 list of studies that its users would like to see replicated. The Jaeggi study is currently No. 1. While this is an indication of the interest among psychologists in the idea that cognitive training might produce remarkable gains in intelligence, it also reflects a widespread cautiousness toward the results of a single study.

Another reason for skepticism is a weakness in the Jaeggi study’s design: it included only a single test of reasoning to measure gains in intelligence. As the cognitive psychologists Zachary Shipstead, Thomas Redick and Randall Engle note in a recent review of the cognitive training literature in Psychological Bulletin, intelligence can’t be measured with any single test; it reflects what tests of many cognitive abilities have in common. Demonstrating that subjects are better on one reasoning test after cognitive training doesn’t establish that they’re smarter. It merely establishes that they’re better on one reasoning test.

We shouldn’t be surprised if extraordinary claims of quick gains in intelligence turn out to be wrong. Most extraordinary claims are. But we shouldn’t be totally discouraged, either. Results of studies like the Abecedarian project suggest that intelligence can be increased by making improvements in people’s environments, and that this can improve people’s lives.

But such studies also suggest that meaningful increases are not likely without a substantial commitment of resources. If we lose sight of this fact, this is a commitment we may never make.

David Z. Hambrick is an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University.
 
dapaterson said:
Ah - but do we need a degree-granting institution?  Or more of a trade-school that provides additional education needed for specific occupations?

AFAIK Sandhust is not a university; why does RMC need to be one?

(And why does a Commander for 600-700 officer cadets need to be a 1*, when a battle group of 1500 can be commanded by a LCol?)

The Commander for 600-700 officer cadets is not a 1* it is a LCol who goes by the title Director of Cadets.  This person is responsible for the implementation of the ROTP and UTPNCM program at the military college.

The 1* oversee's the entire operation of the College which is much more then just the Cadet Wing. 

200+ Staff
1000+ Full-time students
5000+ Part-time students
660 Post-graduates

Not too mention a budget of more than 250 million dollars, I think that is a little more then a LCol should be handling, don't you?

RMC is not just an institution for producing officer cadets, it is much much more than that.

There are also some very important government programs which RMC oversee's that don't directly involve the cadet wing i.e.

Department of Applied Military Sciences (Think Tech Staff)
War Studies Department
Defence Management
Division of Continuing Studies
Division of Graduate Studies and Research

You need to stop thinking of RMC as simply one of the methods of pumping out Officers for the CF because it is so much more then that.  It is the Canadian Forces very own think-tank whose research is solely dedicated to the military arts, what civilian university can offer that?  Valuable research for the CF is done at RMC and without the college we would need to outsource much of it which would probably cost us more and give us less bang for our buck.

Stop by and goto one of the engineering departments someday you will see some of the valuable research being done which is not only helping the CF but also saving soldiers lives.  I know this because I have friends I went to school with there who in their 4th year thesis were designing robots to try and find IED's/UXO's as well as other devices.

Does RMC have its problems?  Sure, but I believe we are better off with it then without it.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Many, many years ago Gen (Ret'd) Ramsey Withers did a study on RMC.

Amongst the  several proposals considered was one for a slimmed down RMC with three departments:

1. Engineering - teaching selected core course curricula for MILE, MARE, AERE and electronics - of course CELE and EME would be trained but the core courses would be as indicated. Equally all officers could take engineering degrees but within the limits indicated;

2. Logistics - teaching a range of topics, including courses leading towards a BComm, but aiming to produce a recognized degree in Logistics/Management; and

3. The Military Arts - history, economics, geography, etc, etc, etc, all wrapped up in a strategic studies sort of programme.

The premise was that most CF officers would come from Civvy U, through a reborn UNTD/COTC sort of thing. RMC would be even more selective and much more specialized.

I'm not sure how the whole project ended, nor do I know how that particular submission was received. I recall it because Gen Withers asked my boss for some inputs and he (RAdm Ed Healey) told me to draft them; but it was a very secondary task and, for the life, of me, I can't remember what we said except that we insisted upon a solid core course curriculum for MARE officers.

I read the Withers Report when I was in school, the intent wasn't to get rid of degrees, it was to rationalize the way the programs were implemented with the intent being to be able to pump more officers out of RMC in less time.  This would be accomplished by implementing a series of changes to the way the program was structured with the intent being that more officers enter the CF having come from RMC.

I will post an outline from the executive summary of what the Withers Report aimed to do, the document is still available online btw.

Our first recommendation is that the College fully implement the Balanced Excellence Model detailed in this report.

Recommendations 2 - 7 seek to better integrate RMC into the CF, encouraging the real stakeholders in the College, the three Environments, to ensure its excellence.

Recommendation 8 seeks to improve recruiting and selection. In this regard, MOC selection should be delayed until a RMC cadet's second academic year.

Recommendations 9 - 14 address the academic pillar. Central to these considerations is the absolute requirement to enhance the militarily oriented "core curriculum" for all cadets over all four academic years.

Recommendations 15 - 24 address the issues of military ethos and the creation of a professionally developed and delivered military training program at the College and in the CF.

Recommendation 25 is intended to build on the existing language program to achieve even higher standards of bilingualism in the RMC cadet.

Recommendations 26 - 27 suggest how the physical education pillar can be better integrated into the RMC experience and made more relevant to the CF.

Recommendations 28 - 34 address the requirement to more effectively integrate the four pillars at RMC.

The Study concludes that three "large new ideas" must inform and condition the RMC experience in the future.

A philosophy of facilitating success whereby cadets are mentored and guided towards success must pervade training and education in lieu of the more "Darwinian" model of evaluation for filtering out the unfit.

Reconnect RMC to its raison d'être, the CF as a whole. This will require the reciprocal commitment and effort from the staff at RMC as well as the various stakeholders in the CF. This idea begins to take effect with the enhancement of the recruiting and selection processes as they apply to officers.

The military pillar of the undergraduate program will have to be significantly strengthened. The critical challenge will be to bring about the necessary integration of all four pillars at the College. This will require decisive action from the Commandant and the Principal within the strategic guidance provided by the BOG.

The implementation of the Balanced Excellence Model should begin immediately. A suggested four part process is outlined in the concluding section of the Report. This action is judged cost-effective and will result in an increase at RMC to approximately 1500 cadets. The result will be an increase of RMC graduates in the CF officer corps from the current 25% to 35% - 40%.
  From:  http://www.rmc.ca/bg-cg/rep-rap/withers/es-resume-eng.asp
 
250 million bucks?!?  Wowza - compare that to the annual operating budget of a CMBG and I now have a target for cuts!

RoyalDrew said:
Department of Applied Military Sciences (Think Tech Staff)

Can be done at Toronto/Kingston (think Shrivingham)

War Studies Department
Defence Management
Division of Continuing Studies
Division of Graduate Studies and Research

UNB and UofC have fine Defence Studies Programs.  Real graduate schools are found all over the country (and on the internet).

Stop by and goto one of the engineering departments someday you will see some of the valuable research being done which is not only helping the CF but also saving soldiers lives.

DRDC?  Defence Contractors?

I'm not arguing that we can go without all these capabilities, but I suspect there may be ways to achieve efficiencies.
 
Back
Top