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

[Michael OLeary]

That generation, in particular, seemed to drive genius and technological advancement more than any other generation. I wonder if it was at least in part because they went to university later in life and therefore, had a more thoughtful educational experience?

That generation was also, because of the war, introduced to levels of technology and rates of technological advancement that would never have occurred without the conflict driving them. Add to that the training so many had received to operate military equipment, to lead others, and to run all of the camps and institutions. They came home primed to absorb that educational opportunity, especially the numbers of returning service men and women who might otherwise have never considered post-secondary education, and to see directions and possibilities for further progress.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So then, the question is- could the CF's post secondary education budget be better spent on those who are more mature, both in terms of age and years of service? Can we make a convincing case that university education actually is wasted on our average 18 year old?

 

[George Wallace]

I would like to see degree selection deferred until after an officer has a bit of experience. My own, personal, experience suggests that our ideas on what we want to "be," in academic terms ~ what sort of degree we might want to earn ~ will change with age. Certainly, in my case, my ideas at age 27ish were quite different from when I was 17.

You have set yourself as a prime example.  I have known a fairly large number of Ptes and Cpls who have left the CAF to go to university.  Most of them remarked that the discipline and work ethic that they acquired in the Service served them better than had they gone to university right out of High School.  These factors, and maturity, gave them better and more disciplined study habits and making them better students. 

 

[George Wallace]

So then, the question is- could the CF's post secondary education budget be better spent on those who are more mature, both in terms of age and years of service? Can we make a convincing case that university education actually is wasted on our average 18 year old?

We have discussed this in the past.  One of the comments was that we should be looking the top graduating candidates of our PLQ, 6A and other Leadership Crse and offering them a career path change; the opportunity to go to RMC and get a university Degree on the way to becoming an officer. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?

 

[George Wallace]

What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?

Not too much.

It is a concept that we saw appear in the past two decades where a diploma hanging on your office wall was like the Faerie Godmother touching you with her magic wand and POOF you were instantly a leader.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Further evidence for delaying earning a degree in this article about Ernst & Young removing the degree requirement from their recruiting (most E&Y recruits would be the same sort of people we would look at as potential officers).

Though I would agree with some (most?) of your argument concerning undergraduate education for officers, after reading the linked article, I reached a different conclusion about what Ernst and Young are saying.  I don't think they have decided to start recruiting talent from the non-university/college educated pool - they have just decided that a potential employee's "degree classification" and UCAS points (i.e. their grades) will not be automatic cut-offs in their evaluation.  I think that's what the article is saying, but as it is from their UK operation, it is somewhat confusing as to the meaning.  Not that they (or we) don't understand the Queen's English, it's just that the British educational system (much like their cuisine, drinking warm beer and driving on the wrong side of the road) is incomprehensible to those of us on this side of the pond.

 

[Blackadder1916]

What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?

Nobody - not even the CAF - makes a connection between having a bachelor's degree and leadership ability. 

http://www.forces.ca/en/page/faq-220

Why do Officers need university degrees?

Officers in the Forces are required to think critically, develop innovative solutions to problems and use their intellectual abilities to analyze, plan and make decisions. A university degree is a very good indicator that an applicant has the intellectual skills that Officers need on the job.

However, based on my experience with "some" university graduates, I would dispute that intellect had anything to do with them receiving a degree.

 

[dapaterson]

What is it that makes a guy getting a degree in for example finance, good leadership material?

Find a copy of the reoprt to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces from 1997; it's the genesis of the Degreed Officer Corps (recommendation #10).  Many other interesting recomendations in that report that were not implemented (or were implemented and then abandonned). 

 

[Good2Golf]

So then, the question is- could the CF's post secondary education budget be better spent on those who are more mature, both in terms of age and years of service? Can we make a convincing case that university education actually is wasted on our average 18 year old?

...but that would be counter to what Bland, English and Bercuson argued immediately post-Somalia...that degrees and more of them, is the best way to professionalize a force.

G2G

 

[Edward Campbell]

Though I would agree with some (most?) of your argument concerning undergraduate education for officers, after reading the linked article, I reached a different conclusion about what Ernst and Young are saying.  I don't think they have decided to start recruiting talent from the non-university/college educated pool - they have just decided that a potential employee's "degree classification" and UCAS points (i.e. their grades) will not be automatic cut-offs in their evaluation.  I think that's what the article is saying, but as it is from their UK operation, it is somewhat confusing as to the meaning.  Not that they (or we) don't understand the Queen's English, it's just that the British educational system (much like their cuisine, drinking warm beer and driving on the wrong side of the road) is incomprehensible to those of us on this side of the pond.

The key "take away" for me is: your undergraduate degree (earned at, roughly, ages 18-22 years) has little predictive value for your professional achievements, even though it may be a prerequisite for some of them. I read the E&Y decision as favouring a wide range of "background" factors and not allowing education, in the form of an undergraduate degree, to be a "must" gate for recruitment. From that I still suggest, after rereading it, that we ought to have a (mainly) degreed officer corps but the degree, itself, ought not to be a prerequisite for commissioning, proper.

(I also wonder, parenthetically, if a "second class" degree ~ say a "pass" BA with a concentration in military arts and leadership ~ could not be earned in two full years, in say six semesters of about 15 weeks each, at RMC or CMR, six or seven years after the first 18 month programme. Maybe many general service officers don't need honours degrees in philosophy, physics or political science.)

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . From that I still suggest, after rereading it, that we ought to have a (mainly) degreed officer corps but the degree, itself, ought not to be a prerequisite for commissioning, proper.

And that I'm 100% in agreement with.  I, (and I'm assuming you as well) started off in the ranks and did not have a degree when I was commissioned.  Of course that was in a time when it was very common for such and even entry level management positions in the private sector could be attained without a degree.  However, times have changed, and whether we like it or not, proof of some intellectual ability a post-secondary educational credential (even if from a cracker jack box) is almost mandatory for any job.

(I also wonder, parenthetically, if a "second class" degree ~ say a "pass" BA with a concentration in military arts and leadership ~ could not be earned in two full years, in say six semesters of about 15 weeks each, at RMC or CMR, six or seven years after the first 18 month programme. Maybe many general service officers don't need honours degrees in philosophy, physics or political science.)

This, I think is a very good idea, however, I am hesitant about unleashing 19 year old platoon commanders on troops after an initial 18 month programme.  They should have some seasoning before that, if not in the military at least in life (even if it is the rarefied structure of university).  Though it is difficult to compare the educational (and military) systems of European countries with our own, perhaps something along the lines of the French Army's officer school would work.  As I understand (and I may be wrong), French Army officer candidates enter Ste Cyr with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree and on completion of the programme leave with a master's.  They also have an option for those without an undergraduate degree (e.g. mainly those from the ranks) to complete an accelerated bachelor's degree as you suggested.  Their navy and air force academy graduates still leave with a bachelors.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am not necessarily arguing against a degreed officer corps. I am just questioning when we deliver the degree.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And that I'm 100% in agreement with.  I, (and I'm assuming you as well) started off in the ranks and did not a degree when I was commissioned.  Of course that was in a time when it was very common for such and even entry level management positions in the private sector could be attained without a degree.  However, times have changed, and whether we like it or not, proof of some intellectual ability a post-secondary educational credential (even if from a cracker jack box) is almost mandatory for any job.

This, I think is a very good idea, however, I am hesitant about unleashing 19 year old platoon commanders on troops after an initial 18 month programme.  They should have some seasoning before that, if not in the military at least in life (even if it is the rarefied structure of university).  Though it is difficult to compare the educational (and military) systems of European countries with our own, perhaps something along the lines of the French Army's officer school would work.  As I understand (and I may be wrong), French Army officer candidates enter Ste Cyr with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree and on completion of the programme leave with a master's.  They also have an option for those without an undergraduate degree (e.g. mainly those from the ranks) to complete an accelerated bachelor's degree as you suggested.  Their navy and air force academy graduates still leave with a bachelors.

Please go back to my two separate posts that started this tangent. In the 1950s and '60s we had a lot of 19 (well, mostly 20) year old kids commanding platoons ~ some, of course, were dunderheads, just like some platoon commanders fresh out of RMC, but many, indeed most, did just fine. Young men, boys really, could apply for OCP at 18, fresh out of high school, and they could be 2Lts, commanding platoons, just over a year or so later if they did Phases 1, 2, 3 and the Young Officers' Tactics Course and the Platoon Commander's Course (Phase 4) one right after the other ... bang, bang, bang, as it were. (It was about the same, maybe a bit longer, for young jet fighter pilots, too: enrol at 18 and be in the cockpit of a F-86 or CF-100 two years later.)

The British Army's Commissioning Course is, I believe, 44 weeks at Sandhurst, followed by a 16 week Platoon Commander's Course, which amounts to about 15 months.

 

[dapaterson]

I am not necessarily arguing against a degreed officer corps. I am just questioning when we deliver the degree.

I,on the other hand, do question the degreed officer corps.  Senior officers?  OK, I can go for that.  Even provide limited windows to get undegreed Jr Officers into Snr officerdom.

And I'd keep ROTP, but abandon running a military university - anything we need, we can get better and cheaper from the existing university system instead of building our own.  RMC should be a Sandhurst style school - officer training, not education.  If we want to give Masters degrees for senior programs like JCSP or NSP, do it in conjunction with a university with recognized expertise in the field.

Of course, this all presupposes a radical adjustment to the size of the officer corps.  We don't need 25% of the Regular Force to be officers (including OCdts).  We don't need over 5000 senior officers in a Regular Force that can sustain (only just) 2000 soldiers in the field.

Indeed, the same direction that ordered a degreed officer crops also ordered that the CAF have fewer than 65 General and Flag Officers, and ordered a review to improve the ratios of officers to NCMs, and senior NCMs to junior NCMs.  But we only have one institution with a vested interest - and so the degreed officer corps nonsense flourishes, while fixing the structure does not.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am not necessarily arguing against a degreed officer corps. I am just questioning when we deliver the degree.

:ditto:  just to be clear: I'm fine with a degreed officer corps, I understand that some officers will need, or the CF will benefit from them having, multiple degrees. But, I don't think a degree is needed as a prerequisite for commissioning and I wonder if some (many?) officers would not benefit (enough for the military's needs, anyway) from a  broad "general" military arts degree, something akin to the old "pass BA" (which could be completed in three years) or the British ordinary degree, which also could be done in three.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You have set yourself as a prime example.  I have known a fairly large number of Ptes and Cpls who have left the CAF to go to university.  Most of them remarked that the discipline and work ethic that they acquired in the Service served them better than had they gone to university right out of High School.  These factors, and maturity, gave them better and more disciplined study habits and making them better students.

I'll also add to that a university education that is more focused.  Adult learners, generally speakin
g, have a set, well-defined goal and motivators when they enter post-secondary studies after being in the workforce.  I know this is the case for me, currently working towards a B. Ed in Adult Education.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I have to agree with what you said above.  The discipline 'get the task' done mindset the military instills helps you to not put off coursework that needs to get done, the study habits from taking multiple training courses helps to ensure best use of time, etc. 

The Crown only pays for my coursing upon complete of the courses I am taking, and only to the amount supported in my ILP.  If I decided to screw the pooch and not pass my courses this semester, I'd be out my own $$ and have no credits towards my degree.  I believe this 'pay up front' policy is an effective way of eliminating those people who don't have motivation and an identified, defined goal.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I am hesitant about unleashing 19 year old platoon commanders on troops after an initial 18 month programme.

In the fall of 1982 I arrived at the Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School (CFOCS) in Chilliwack, BC. Some of us had left university before graduating, for various reasons. Others were fresh high school graduates from that spring, while others were being commissioned from the ranks on different programs (having held ranks up to Sergeant). There was a mix of prior Res and Reg F service along with long-haired civvies (literally).

We completed our basic Officer Training Course (BOTC) before Christmas, and those pursuing careers in the Combat Arms (Inf, Armd, Arty) found ourselves in Gagetown on the second day of January. We then took three consecutive Phase training courses to graduate in August 1983.

Along the way we picked up some folks that were waiting, for whatever reason, for each course, and in the summer the ROTP (civ and mil) rolled in for Phase IV. The guys off the street (OCTP, etc) discovered very quickly that the low level of investment the Reg F had in us meant that we could, and would, be cast aside without mercy. The man eating truck was a fact of life on Ph II and III. When the ROTP crowd rolled in, they had a very different attitude, blatantly acknowledging that failure in Ph IV often meant a chance to try a different trade (short of a critical ethical failure).

Once we hit the battalion, the difference between the OCTP guys without degrees and some of the ROTP became more distinct. Some ROTP saw the battalion as just a stepping stone forward, they put more energy into their Officer Professional Development Program (PDP) exams than in commanding their platoons. They knew they were already protected as having greater envisioned "potential" by benefit of the ROTP. Those few, call them the bad applies or outliers if you want, were also the ones who would dismiss NCO input more readily.

After only an "initial 18 12 month programme" of BOTC and Phase training, there was no difference in the readiness of those young officers to lead their platoons. ROTC did not provide any noticeable "crucible" for leadership training that showed then more prepared for Ph IV or for the battalion. Some of them may have been stellar RMC/RRMC/CMR cadets, but that didn't necessarily mean they made even above average officers on the ground in front of soldiers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Nobody - not even the CAF - makes a connection between having a bachelor's degree and leadership ability. 

http://www.forces.ca/en/page/faq-220
However, based on my experience with "some" university graduates, I would dispute that intellect had anything to do with them receiving a degree.

It's good for any organization to draw leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds to diversify risk, and make sure that everyone isn't 'thinking alike':

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

George S. Patton

 

[Kirkhill]

....

So, my question, related to the notion that we have too many, too senior officers serving in too many bloated HQs, is: is a beneficial "split" possible, even desirable, between candidates for careers in the commissioned ranks (who must have university degrees, be bilingual, etc) and for a pool of "fighters," young men and women who will sail, serve in field units and fly for a few years and then leave the CF, perhaps being "forced" out after a short service engagement, because they have filled the roles for which they were needed and engaged? Might we decide that we can provide a short (say one year) post secondary academic programme to make our junior officers into the sorts of young apprentice officers we want and then offer the best of that lot full degrees after they have served three to five years in the field? (the ones we keep and educated would then fill the (fewer) staff and command slots.) Could we not have "pilot officers" or even "pilot warrant officers," or  pilot sergeants  in the cockpits of some of our helicopters, fighters and transports and in the "driver's seats" of our RPVs?

Ted,  aren't there natural dividing lines between the Subaltern, Field Officers and Generals?

Why not: "Lieutenants may degree, Captains should degree, Majors must degree".

Captains and lower are, and traditionally have been, your fighting officers.  Majors, Lt Cols and Cols were you regimental officers. Brigadiers and up, by definition, your General Officers.

Edit: it would marry up with the psc requirement.