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

[Fishbone Jones]

I am currently a ROTP OCdt at a civilian university. IN MY OPINION, there are pros and cons to the program (both RMC/CMR and Civi U).

The pros include giving us experiences from both sides of things, the military and the civilian. We receive  our training during the summers and also OJE during the summer between university and the course we are taking in the summer. This gives us some practical military experience in addition to the training we do in the summer. When we are at school, we are still bound by The NDA/QR&O/CSD and all other regulations/orders. We are RegForce military members who's job it is to go to school. That said, at university, we still get similar life experiences as other students in regards to social interactions, disputes with professors etc. These experiences gives us different "life Lessons" but also gives us experiences with the military at the same time.

One of the cons is the cost of the program. The CF pays our tuition, books and other mandatory fees. As well, salary and all the CF benefits. However, the program enables the CF to cultivate skilled officers and acquire individuals who have a variety of different skills, degrees and experiences that help enhance the CF (not to say that others don't enhance the CF, many do more so than ROTP OCdts, but we do have some value to the CF).

The point I am getting at is that whilst it is an expensive program, it gives the CF officers who are different then DEO officers. When we are commissioned and posted, we have had 2-4 years in the Forces, maybe not in our eventual roles in our trades but in the administrative system, several months of OJE and the valuable lesson of having to abide by all the CF Laws in the civilian world. Even though getting rid of the program would save the CF money, replacing it with a "finishing School" for officers (as suggested earlier in the thread) wouldn't necessarily be as effective. ROTP is expensive but in the long run it gives the CF a different kind of officer then DEO which does help to enhance CF as a whole.

On another note, a degree doesn't guarantee you skills like critical thinking. There are classmates of mine who I wouldn't trust to manage a lemonade stand let alone an infantry platoon or MP section. That said, requiring officers to have degrees is not a bad thing. It would make sense for those Senior NCO's being commissioned from the ranks to have this requirement waved but required DEO's to have one. 

Feel free to disagree, it is just my opinion.

There are also an awful lot of those fine, intelligent young officers, that spend all that time in University, getting those degrees that hit Phase training and thunder in so bad that they are done before they start. Just not smart enough to think tactically, work under stress or command troops, no matter what their degree says. I suppose though that some get plucked from that horrid fate, into some administrative position, to where somewhere down the road, as a Major or LCol, writing plans for the CDS (because they have a degree) they will be able to determine what the troops in the field really need  :

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Does a College Degree Really Matter?
Kate Lorenz, CareerBuilder.com Editor


If college drop-outs like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and Richard Branson all run wildly successful enterprises, why is Melissa Gerry,* a mid-level manager with years of experience -- but no college degree -- having such a hard time finding a job?

Gerry joined a Fortune 100 company right out of high school starting out as a secretary and working her way up to marketing manager. Gerry performed well and was highly regarded. But when the company she worked for merged with a larger organization and moved its headquarters across the country, Gerry found herself looking for work for the first time in 15 years. Unfortunately, after months of searching, all she's been able to land are secretarial assignments. Why? Gerry believes it's because she didn't go to college.

While in the past, a college degree may have been optional, these days it seems to have become the minimum requirement for getting a good job and succeeding in the workforce.

Jeff Blass,* a 40-year-old mid-level manager at a major food company, believes his lack of degree has stalled his advancement opportunities. "It didn't keep me from moving out of the mailroom," he says. "However, it seems to be holding me back now."

Nicole McMillen, executive director for Pre-Paid Legal Services, left college to get married and start a family and just recently entered the workforce. Ostensibly, McMillen would have had several strikes against her: no degree, no experience and a late start to boot! Yet on the contrary, McMillen says she had no trouble finding work -- or getting promoted. "I suppose it depends on the type of position you're looking for," says McMillen, who represents her firm to large corporations and other employers. "For me, it's all been about performance and results."

No one disputes that a college degree opens doors.

"Most college degrees don't necessarily qualify the graduate for anything," says Charles Murray, co-author of "The Bell Curve," a book which explores the role of intelligence in American life. Murray contends that a college education need be no more important for most white collar professions as it is for, say, a basketball player. "Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you're a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript," Murray says. Murray predicts that providing an employer with evidence that you are good at something without the benefit of a college degree is become more acceptable as companies become more sophisticated about what it takes to do the job and what a college education actually provides.

For example: Terry Jones, CEO of Travelocity, was a history major at Denison University; Murry Gerber, President and CEO of Equitable Resources, was a geology major at Augustana College; Kay Krill, CEO of Ann Taylor, majored in psychology at Agnes Scott College, while Anne Sweeney, president of Disney-ABC Television Group was an education major at the University of Rochelle. Then there are CEOs like Carly Fiorina (formerly of Hewlett Packard) who majored in medieval history and philosophy and Michael Eisner (formerly of Disney) who majored in English and never took a single business course.

Or as McMillen puts it, "I've found that knowing and believing in your abilities, presenting yourself in an articulate, polished manner, and making an effort to connect with others can overcome -- and even make the interviewer overlook -- that missing credential at the bottom of your resume."

*Last names changed.


ANYONE can get a degree... put in enough time, take enough classes, and the paper follows.  Does it mean that you can actually apply any of the information? Nope.  Does it mean that you're actually capable of critical thinking at an operational or strategic level? I dont believe so.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The point I am getting at is that whilst it is an expensive program, it gives the CF officers who are different then DEO officers. When we are commissioned and posted, we have had 2-4 years in the Forces, maybe not in our eventual roles in our trades but in the administrative system, several months of OJE and the valuable lesson of having to abide by all the CF Laws in the civilian world. Even though getting rid of the program would save the CF money, replacing it with a "finishing School" for officers (as suggested earlier in the thread) wouldn't necessarily be as effective. ROTP is expensive but in the long run it gives the CF a different kind of officer then DEO which does help to enhance CF as a whole.

How exactly does going to ROTP make someone a different kind of officer than being a DEO?

 

[mba2011]

There are also an awful lot of those fine, intelligent young officers, that spend all that time in University, getting those degrees that hit Phase training and thunder in so bad that they are done before they start. Just not smart enough to think tactically, work under stress or command troops, no matter what their degree says. I suppose though that some get plucked from that horrid fate, into some administrative position, to where somewhere down the road, as a Major or LCol, writing plans for the CDS (because they have a degree) they will be able to determine what the troops in the field really need  :

That is a fair point. There ARE DEO candidates that do the same thing. Having a DEO VR or be re-coursed on BMOQ-Land (For example) is cheaper for the Forces then having a ROTP OCdt, after 4 years of subsidization, be released  during Phase IV. However that cost is recouped by all the financial penalties we have to pay if we are released (or VR) before our obligatory service is complete. We have to pay back all money the CF paid, including our tuition, salary, travel, course fees, any medical costs. EVERY CENT is recouped by the Forces so the financial risks are negligible. There are for sure other costs to the CF if we as OCdt's can't "Hack it " in the Forces but in terms of the financial cost, the CF isn't  impacted too greatly. Once we start our second year of subsidization, the CF either gets its money back, or an officer who is in for years. My contract for example is 13 years, 9 once I graduate.

In response to Bird_Gunner45, ROTP Officers aren't better or worse the DEO, just different. We have just had different experience in the CF. If you take an ROTP OCdt and DEO officer, the ROTP Officer has had at least 2 years in, having had 2 years experience dealing with military admin, a few months of OJE and other experience the DEO Officer hasn't. ROTP officers aren't more valuable or anything, just different.

 

[Drag]

You still seriously contend that in order to be a critical thinker and\ or posit a business plan to the CDS, or such, requires a degree?

That, to me anyway, shows you didn't learn much in your four years. Not much of consequence anyway. Certainly not enough to put you anywhere above many of the WOs & Snr NCOs I have known throughout my long career.

I'll reiterate. Your arse is a star. The only thing you have seemed to have learned is pompasity and an outward disdain or scorn for anyone that hasn't wasted four years of their life in one of your sanctified halls of learning where a degree is a degree is a degree. No matter which one it is.

And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?

 

[aesop081]

And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?

Do you think that the only method of developing those skills is through undergraduate university education ?

Where do you think the rest of us develop those skills ?

 

[GAP]

Do you think that the only method of developing those skills is through undergraduate university education ?

Where do you think the rest of us develop those skills ?

"Oh, you mean they have them? " with raised eyebrows,  expected answer...... :


just having fun before anybody's panties get in a knot..... :bunny:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Do you think that the only method of developing those skills is through undergraduate university education ?

Where do you think the rest of us develop those skills ?

C'mon CA. If you don't go to university you can't develop those skills, don'tcha know.

D3 says we're not capable.

Knuckle draggin' neanderthals, we are. Not fit to be included with the elitist thinkers of society.

The military is just dumbasses and those that get a degree. You have to be one or the other.

That certainly seems to be what D3 is purporting anyway.

 

[Maxadia]

I've got two degrees, both bachelor's.

However, IF I do get accepted into the PRes, I fully expect that a lot of the useful experience that I have gained at my age of 4 decades is going to come from other places than my degrees.  However, I also know that some of the skills that I have put to use will help me with the administrative portions.

And some of both will be frickin useless all around to the PRes.

No, I don't believe all officers need degrees.  Yes, I do believe that we could build a training program for officers that would build them up to be successful in a military capacity. 

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't non-commissioned members have the opportunity sometimes to transfer into an officer position? I assume that these officers from the ranks (if they don't have degrees) aren't showing a huge percentage of failure rates as officers?

 

[Loachman]

And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?

Certainly not through any basic degree.

There are several professional-development courses that Officers take as they progress, as well as experience gained on the job, every day.

We did just fine before the RMC-justification programme kicked in.

 

[jeffb]

I have a college diploma, an undergrad in history and am working my way through a MA and a MBA. All of these are Civy U and I did my diploma and BA before I joined the CF. Neither my MA nor my MBA are at RMC and both are being completed while I do my day job.  Does having all this education make me better at my current job as a tactical level leader in the Artillery? No, it probably does not in any major way. However, as long as the CF is hiring people off the street, and maybe that's a whole other discussion topic, the degree is as good a filter as any in my view. I can't imagine any way in which the recruiting system would be able to accurately predict who will be successful in their phase training and as a leader without extensive testing. At least the degree shows that the applicant probably has some basic critical thinking skills, is able to persevere at a simple task and has some idea how to go about learning. All of these things can be found, and to a much greater degree in some cases, in non-university grads but I can not imagine how it would be identified by CFRG.

There is a major benefit to going to RMC that I had not fully appreciated until I was posted to the unit, namely, the networking they get. RMC grads have the advantage of building a vast network of contacts spread across Canada that invariable makes problems easier for them to solve. I do not think that this warrants spending millions of dollars on this institution however.

In today's hyper competitive job market, it does not make sense to subsidize education for as many people as we do. In the foreseeable future, there will be more than enough DEO's applying to cover the CF demand. The big problem with RMC from a officer corps management perspective is that the size of RMC has to be relatively fixed due to union contracts with professors, support staff, etc. The non-RMC ROTP program can be scaled up and down to meet projected staffing levels from year to year.

 

[Good2Golf]

And how exactly would you deliver training to ensure that the officer corps has the analytical/ critical thinking skills to function at the operational/ strategic level?

We could start by re-establishing a CF-wide junior officer (degreed OR not degreed) staff course, that included the specific subject of critical thinking (using the little blue booklet that CF officers only see [again, for some] during JCSP).  Thereafter, the topic of 'critical thought' would be reinforced throughout the balance of DP2, 3 and 4, emphasizing it throughout as a military skill to be developed within a military professional development framework, not an "academicized" version of what academics believe will make military professionals more 'professional'.

I applaud the RCAF for giving NCMs the opportunity to accept the challenge of a technical course such as ASC.  As an ASC graduate myself, and having worked with many NCMs who had excellent critical thinking as well as technical skills, I think such a decision is quite well-considered and that NCMs so trained would be an incredible benefit to procurement, systems management, technical and operationally oriented positions within the RCAF and the CF. 

While a subjective statement, open to challenge by others who my wish to refute my opinion, I believe that the majority of the skills I used during my career were either derived directly from operational experience, numerous technical courses (CF and NATO) taken, and from the 10 1/2 months I spent in Winnipeg on the ASC.  The experiences and material studied during both my undergraduate and post-graduate studies reinforced my overall skill set, but were not the principal basis of it.

Those who have noted the benefit of a program such as that which the UK Armed Forces have with Sandhurst I believe are making the case for an upper-case "M" in military professional development, yet that still can include a suitable amount of academic material that reinforces the thinking officer who can apply an analytical model that supports a logically deductive thought process.  I concur with them.

In the end, I do not believe that a policy that stresses a 100% degreed junior officer corps for the sake of having a degree necessarily supports a critical thinking officer corps.  The officer professional development process used to have significant emphasis on critical thought within the military training framework, especially 'critical' in the early stages of an officer's career.  I believe the removal of CF-wide staff training (which included the little blue "critical thinking" booklet) was misguided -- replaced with a facile policy that equated a degree...any degree...to a better officer corps than one where not every junior officer had a degree.

My  :2c:


Regards
G2G

 

[aesop081]

However, as long as the CF is hiring people off the street, and maybe that's a whole other discussion topic, the degree is as good a filter as any in my view. I can't imagine any way in which the recruiting system would be able to accurately predict who will be successful in their phase training and as a leader without extensive testing.

Yet, that is exactly something the CF used to do: The Officer Candidate Training Program.

Infantry, Armoured, Artillery, Pilot, MARS and ANAV as i recall. No degree, straight to CFOCS then MOC training.

 

[Maxadia]

Yet, that is exactly something the CF used to do: The Officer Candidate Training Program.

Infantry, Armoured, Artillery, Pilot, MARS and ANAV as i recall. No degree, straight to CFOCS then MOC training.

But some of them MAY have had degrees, right? And degrees or not, how did things pan out? In your opinion, of course....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Or the realization that the LCol Section Head/ Director or the Maj PD/PM/ Senior Analyst need to be just as well educated as their counterparts at TBS/PWGSC/DFAIT/ Public Safety/ CSEC in order to be able to operate on the same level with them and not have them run circles around us at our detriment.

I wasn't sure which of your ass hat comments to respond to....so I picked this one. 

You are a CELE Capt with 9 years experience - of which approximately half was, no doubt, as a student.  That means you a) have the same amount of military experience as an newly promoted Cpl in an Infantry Battalion, and b) have no real clue what a "LCol Section Head" does, unless of course you are currently a PA to a four-ringer or one-star somewhere. 

I have a tad more experience with all of this than you do.  I have met Colonels who made out just fine as "LCol Section Heads" with a Grade 11 education.  I have met scads of young officers with degrees who were well-educated, and dumb as a post. I have met just as many who are adding value to the institution.  Inevitably, their education has little to do with whether or not they will add value.  Their character, innate intelligence, their EQ (a very underrated metric in my mind, given that we work in a people business) and finally their determination will be the key determinants of success. 

I have a few degrees of various types, and I get schooled at chess once a week.....by a WO. 

He is special.  You are not.

 

[Infanteer]

We had a really good discussion about this 5 or 6 years ago, but it's worth turning over now and again to keep arguments fresh.  This thread has run the gamut from interesting to outright garbage but it is a topic that I have read very deeply into, so I'll chuck my 2 cents in.

First off, I concur fully with Good2Golf's post above.  Everyone should read and understand the gist of it.  As an officer, one is a professional - a member of a professional body (as described by Huntington - go read the book if you haven't) - and not an academic.  A degree only helps if it furthers one's professional understanding.  Notice Good2Golf's point on his most valued training - his professional education.  A good surgeon is good not because he has a BSc, but because he went to Med School.

I'll also concur with Good2Golf's opinion of all-degreed officer corps policy.  Although there is nothing wrong per se of demanding more out of the profession (we should never discourage a desire to learn more), the method of using it as a yard stick is faulty.  As degree means nothing other than someone handed in terms papers and wrote exams for 4 years.  I see no evidence to the claim that undergraduate degrees produce people with better analytic abilities.  In fact, I'd argue that undergrads with strong analytic abilities had those traits going into their studies - I have nothing to support this, but it has as much standing as the other argument.

Besides, selection is only half the battle - one can pick the finest raw material, but the real value is in the finished product.  What is really lacking is the depth of professional education in our military.  I am not talking the ability to spout random dates of battles or tank models, but rather the ability to understand the core of the profession.  I'd argue this is a mix of technical education (tactics, technology, and doctrine) and a general military education.

The military, especially the Army, is an incredibly intuitive organization and has an exceptional deference for experience.  However, this can get us into trouble if the depth of our professional understanding is not so deep.  The result is we often accept things at face value and believe in "common wisdom" that fails under scrutiny.  Someone says "doctrine says the attacker needs a ratio of 3:1 over the defence to succeed" and we shape our tactics by this, but if one starts to go through history there is nothing to substantiate the claim.  Someone says "this weapon system is 90% of the firepower of a unit" and training is changed to accommodate it, yet when one looks into the mechanics of an engagement, the weapon system is not as important as it seems.  Someone says "modern warfare is complex so the HQ needs to look like this" and organizations mirror the theory, but when one starts applying organizational theory and understanding what the actual outputs of command are, it is apparent that the organization is too big and actually slows command processes down.  These are just examples of where a lack of understanding of the profession can lead to insufficient rigour and critical thought when we make decisions on how to conduct our most basic processes.  As a result, we get junk like 'manoeuvre warfare' (which still stinks up our doctrine to this day) or 'fourth-generation warfare'.

Don't think this professional laziness is important to the day-to-day affairs of a military?  Look up 'France - 1940'.

All this is to say that I would prefer a broader professional education for new officers entering the profession of arms.  Such an education should see all aspirants attend a much leaner and more focused RMC - the focus would be on a general military education (granting a degree or a certificate).  Attendance would be between 1-3 years, depending on the commissioning plan.  Concurrent to this training and military education would also be 6 months service in a front-line unit.  One's assessment by SNCO/WOs and the CO would be critical for advancement.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is, partially, an aside, but: Somalia did NOT lead us to a degreed officer corps, it was a catalyst, not a cause.

The move towards a (mostly) degreed officer corps was underway since the 1960s. The business of the "production of officers" has changed radically over 200 years. It is worthwhile noting that both RMC and the US Military Academy at West Point were only partially about the military: both had a mission of producing well educated "nation builders" who happened to have some military training. Throughout the 20th century we, Western nations, generally held a "big M" military view: professional training was more important than academic credentials - from 1900 to about 2000 a high school diploma was considered a sufficiently firm base upon which the military could build a professional officer corps, even in technical branches like Signals.

(My chum BGen (ret'd) Don Banks, for example, was one of the most successful CELE officers - Don enlisted in the Canadian Army as a 16 year old apprentice soldier in the late 1950s and retired 35+ years later as a BGen, during those 35 years he managed to get a high school diploma, never a degree. His Corps/Branch, the Army and the CF were able to build a first class officer/leader/senior manager on that foundation. Another anecdotal example: my cousin retired a few years ago as a senior official in DFAIT. When he finished high school (late 1950s) he enrolled in the RCAF and was trained as a fighter pilot - he flew F-86s in German and CF-100s in Canada. He took his degree only after he left the Air Force (on mutually good terms) as a necessary step towards the career he really wanted. The RCAF, like the RCN and the Canadian Army, was quite content to get a substantial share of its combatant officer corps from the ranks of young high school graduates. As Good2Golf says, professionals could be "produced" from that base. Finally, like some other older members of Army.ca I enlisted as a private soldier; I was better educated, having finished high school, than most of my peers - we had a lot of Grade 8 education level fellows in the ranks a half century ago. The Army saw some potential in me and I was sent for officer training. I was commissioned in the same class as several fellows from RCM and Civvy U; we all struggled equally with the challenges of learning to be young combat leaders, education didn't help a whole lot - except for officers in the Royal Canadian Engineers. (Going back to CELE/Signals: the 1960s and 70s were a time of massive technological change for the Army but many, many Signal officers, in the field and in HQ, were undegreed or, like me, had a BA in something interesting like history or, as I recall one good friend, a skilled Signal officer in the 1960s, music.))

But during the last half of the 20th century we, society at large, began to question the status of a high school diploma ~ partially because the US made access to post secondary education easier and easier. There were many societal implications and consequences from an educated society, the impact on the military was, relatively, minor.

I, personally, am very comfortable with a degreed officer corps - but I think it is quite possible to delay the education process until some level of military training and experience has been gained. I would not be unhappy with a "production of officers" programme that allowed young men and women to go to the fleet, the field force and flying squadrons without degrees, after a fairly intensive officer training scheme that includes some specialized academics - military history, current affairs, military technology, geography, leadership/psychology, etc.


Edit: typo

 

[Old Sweat]

This thread got me thinking about officer production in the three services pre and post the creation of NATO, which in itself was in response to the Soviet threat and the start of the Korean War. Within a matter of a year or so the army went from an understrength force not all that much different in organization and roles from the PF of 1939 to a force of 15 infantry battalions, three of which were engaged in combat and another three of which were stationed in Germany. The RCAF suddenly found itself with 12 fighter squadrons in Europe while it also had an air defence role at home as well as semi-global air transport responsibilities. The RCN had ships in Korean waters and began to take on ASW in the Atlantic.

This meant that the need for fresh, young officers exploded. The RCAF, for example, had a pilot training system that brought in lots of young men for flying training. Those that passed received five year short service commissions with a very small number being allowed to stay on. The army had the officer candidate programme and the RCN introduced the Venture plan. All of these schemes dated from the early fifties. At about the same time ROTP came into force. (A brother officer of mine who graduated from RMC circa 1960 told me that he was told by none other than Andy McNaughton that ROTP's main aim was not to produce regular officers. Instead it was conceived as a way to provide federal aid to education, which was a provincial responsibility.) I believe, knowing how slowly things work in the forces, that ROTP was designed before the big expansion noted above, and that it suffered in its early years with conflicting aims. As part of its introduction RMC went from being a post secondary college that charged tuition to a key part of ROTP. I suspect Royal Roads did the same and CMR was opened at about the same time.

Did that mean that the forces wanted all their officers to have degrees? Maybe, maybe not. but I have a gut feel that there was not the university capacity in the country at the time, nor was there a perceived need. The COTC and UNTD plans seemed to have worked to produce reserve officers as designed back before the First World War. Would the forces have gone for all degrees earlier? Maybe, but integration and then unification pretty well put the CF back at square one. Professional development was gutted and little green people began to equate cost savings with effectiveness and efficiency. The first 10 or 15 years of the CF was a f.cking terrible experience and I still wonder how we fought off the attempts of the f.ckwads to redo the forces.

I am not sure I have done anything other than to muddy the waters. Let me add that I remember circa 1963 our brigade commander introducing an officer study group on officer training and leadership by noting that various armies have tried various methods, many of which were variations on degree or no degree. Regardless of the method used, they all seemed to produce about the same result and that the determining factor on how good an officer corps was depended upon the training and not the method of selection.

Edit to add: The stated position of the Canadian Army (Regular) on the eve of integration was that the majority of the senior officers would come from ROTP, which implied a recognition of the benefits of post-secondary education. At the same time it recognized that officers who reached the rank of captain, which required passing promotion exams and spending a considerable period as a subaltern, were of a common standard regardless of education and entry method. This is borne out by looking at the students who went to the Canadian Army Staff College. Not everybody went to staff college, and once an officer passed through the "zone" without being selected, he knew his ceiling was major. Each course seemed to have a mix of the various officer production methods in about the same proportion as their population in the army. (Officers went to staff college in those days as captains or junior majors with an average age of around 30 and eight years or so commissioned service.)

 

[Maxadia]

To me, this discussion is like the scene in that Captain America movie where the recruits are asked to retrieve a flag from the top of the flagpole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQO5VM8bSlg

Sometimes you just need someone who can think analytically in ways that a degree might not prepare you for. But having the other professional skills is nice too.

Required degrees or not, I think you'll end up with the same ratio of good and bad.

 

[Loachman]

I would wait until I got some actual TI and actual experience in the CF before making some of the statements you've made

Is thirty-nine years enough?

Likewise, asking someone who has not done post secondary education to produce a staff paper for the Bde/Base/Wing Comd on a complex issue will not give you the same quality of work that someone with a post secondary education would produce.

I will agree with you there. I have seen staffwork from quite a few civ university and RMC grads that is not the same quality that I produce, with my Grade 12 diploma. Much of theirs is rife with errors in spelling, grammar, and logic - and an excessive amount is little more than strings of buzzphrases in place of actual English. It is often fun to ask them to explain what they mean.

I take pride in my work, have the benefit of a solid English primary education that demanded high standards, and perhaps a little natural ability. Experience, the old CF Staff School Course in Toronto, and maybe what is now called the AOC at Fort Frontenac, have helped build on that.

The CF is at least as capable of teaching people to do what you claim only a degree-granting institution can, when appropriate, and in less time.