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

[Edward Campbell]

As someone who read history in university and still studies it intently, I recall, with some fondness, the best history courses I ever took: the first was during officer training, I recall that:

a. Stonewall Jackson was the subject;

b. The main, but not only reference text, was one of a series of yellow covered Canadian Army texts that were written to guide officers studying for promotion exams. I read several of them - they were uniformly excellent: crisp, clear and eminently fair, but never fawning, to their subjects;

c. The instructor was (actually just appeared to us) a very old captain (he was about 40, I think  ) - one of those fellows Old Sweat mentioned who, despite having passed the exams, had not been selected for the Staff College and would, eventually, retire as a major - a damned goo major. He was a first rate teacher who had studied military history extensively, despite never having set foot in a university. He was well read, well spoken and a wonderful teacher of history and tactics.

The second and third were also military history courses: Napoleon and Marlborough, as I recall, and the "courses" were called "study concentrations" which were, in fact, courses run by brigade for officers studying for Lt to Capt and then Capt to Maj promotion exams. I don't recall the qualifications of the officers teaching the course - one was a serving major the other a retired colonel; given their age and cap badges I would be surprised if either had even an undergraduate degree; both would have been very much at home in a good university's senior common room.

Education and learning are not closely related to degrees earned.

By the way, I echo Loachman's comments; the ability to explain a technically complex subject to the DM and CDS does indeed require good analytical skills and junior officer, fresh out of graduate schools with MSc degrees, are almost never, ever up to the task; university seems, to me, to be a poor place to learn to think clearly and express ideas clearly, concisely and accurately. Army staff courses, on the other hand, do an excellent job of teaching those skills - the old Canadian Army Staff College in Kingston, its UK counterparts in Camberly and Shrivenham did teach both thinking and explaining, RMC did not and, I'm guessing still does not; the few officers who came out of RMC (in my experience) and could think without a lot of further training were the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[Rifleman62]

ERC:

......but I think it is quite possible to delay the education process until some level of military training and experience has been gained.

Like language training, and the requirement for this training when only 22% of the population (CF % ??) states English is not their first language.

Loachman:

......an excessive amount is little more than strings of buzzphrases in place of actual English.

"Center of gravity" and others stupid buzzes the smiling hip know-it-alls made us suffered with.

 

[Infanteer]

Army staff courses, on the other hand, do an excellent job of teaching those skills

:rofl:

Have you seen what passes for mission statements and concepts of operations these days?  I've seen Op Orders that rival War and Peace.

As G2G mentioned elsewhere, there has been a bit of a loss of SD in the military - there is actually no formal instruction anymore.  The system probably figured "hey, everyone has a degree so we don't need to teach them to write", failing to understand that SD is a technical skill, not an academic one.

 

[McG]

... 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.

For me, it has been largely the same but with ASC replaced by LFTSP.  After tech staff, the next most important course in preparing me to work outside the tactical level line jobs was in fact the Militia Officer Staff Crse.  There was nothing spectacular about the MOSC, it instructed on policies & directives from QR&O, CFAO and DOAD down to the Army's LFCOs and it enforced a pedantic "do the homework" approach that most skip in relation to doing administration (we'd rather wing-it or invent an unnecessary local directive than research what exists). 

I suspect this adds credence to the arguments from others to bring back a CF junior staff officer course.

I think I see a theme starting to form....

... as the "owner" of RMC, we could introduce more control over the programmes in order to deliver a better product along tighter timelines.  There are legitimate complaints that not all degrees are equal, that individuals can slide through without attaining the critical thinking skills necessary, and that undergraduate education standards are slipping across the country.  Why not use RMC to deliver a professional degree that addresses these concerns in a three year programme?  Currently, BMASc is offered exclusively as a distance learn programme - it should be the primary degree for any ROTP student not required by occupation to take specific technical degree (eg. BEng).

We probably don't need the current four year honours type programme, but we need something ...

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.

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. 

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.

By the way, I echo Loachman's comments; the ability to explain a technically complex subject to the DM and CDS does indeed require good analytical skills and junior officer, fresh out of graduate schools with MSc degrees, are almost never, ever up to the task; university seems, to me, to be a poor place to learn to think clearly and express ideas clearly, concisely and accurately. Army staff courses, on the other hand, do an excellent job of teaching those skills - the old Canadian Army Staff College in Kingston, its UK counterparts in Camberly and Shrivenham did teach both thinking and explaining, RMC did not and, I'm guessing still does not; the few officers who came out of RMC (in my experience) and could think without a lot of further training were the exceptions that prove the rule.

There seems to be agreement that there needs to be a more focused, relevant professional officer education, and that simply attaining bachelor's degree does not equate to that education.  Conceivably a shorter 2-3 year professional undergrad degree (call it a bachelor's degree or an associate degree if you like) could cover the requirements - critical thinking, some military administration (which includes logistics), our OPME subjects, military writing, relevant applied sciences, etc. For DEOs with a degree, there could be a 6 to 10 month post-grad certificate program to complete the same military education requirements.

We would still have a degree officer corps, but the degree would be focused and with a significantly reduced resource requirement.  Such a move would also enable the consolidation of all military colleges onto the Kingston RMC campus and even further reduce our resource bill.

:rofl:

Have you seen what passes for mission statements and concepts of operations these days?  I've seen Op Orders that rival War and Peace.

I think his intent was to say that "Army staff courses, on the other hand, did an excellent job of teaching those skills."  The MOSC with its DL and two week residency was more of a staff course than what I saw on AOC.  Things may have changed, but there was an absence of attention to staff work in lieu of focus on shinny products.  Military administration was given lip service and, when real-world constraints did not support the DOMOPS CAX, students were encouraged to violate the FAA and ignore chains of command.

 

[Old Sweat]

I attribute much of the explosion in complexity to what I christened a couple of decades back as "staff work by photocopier." Instead of picking the gist of the matter from a pile of files, it was easier to just forward everything, along with some twaddle of your own, along with perhaps a cogent observation or two hidden in the bumpf to see if the recipients were paying attention. Now, add computers to the equation and it is too easy to demonstrate your brilliance by confusing volume for productive output.

I just looked up the 2nd Canadian Corps Operation Instruction for Operation Totalize in Normandy in August 1944. It is four pages long. Here is the "mission statement" and "concept of operations." I have put them in quotations because the Second World War terms were different. This was followed by just over two pages of tasks for the various subordinate formations and coordinating instructions. Anything more just gets in the way!

INTENTION.
5. To break through the enemy positions astride the CAEN-FALAISE road.

METHOD.
6. The operations will be conducted in three phases:

    (a) Phase 1 - Break through the FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358 - LA HOGUE 0960 position.

    (b) Phase 2 - Break through the HAUTMESNIL 0852 - ST SYLVAIN 1354 position.

    (c) Phase 3 - Exploit as ordered by Commander 2 Cdn Corps.

 

[dapaterson]

I just looked up the 2nd Canadian Corps Operation Instruction for Operation Totalize in Normandy in August 1944. It is four pages long. Here is the "mission statement" and "concept of operations." I have put them in quotations because the Second World War terms were different. This was followed by just over two pages of tasks for the various subordinate formations and coordinating instructions. Anything more just gets in the way!

INTENTION.
5. To break through the enemy positions astride the CAEN-FALAISE road.

METHOD.
6. The operations will be conducted in three phases:

    (a) Phase 1 - Break through the FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358 - LA HOGUE 0960 position.

    (b) Phase 2 - Break through the HAUTMESNIL 0852 - ST SYLVAIN 1354 position.

    (c) Phase 3 - Exploit as ordered by Commander 2 Cdn Corps.

But.. but... where's the information operations plan?  Where's the environmental annex?  Where's the Crops safety plan?  For the love of god, where's the 39 page INTSUM that contains neither a summary nor usable intelligence?

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . . .  Where's the Crops safety plan?  . . . . . . . .

I know the Germans would get up in arms (and demand payment) when we drove across their fields on exercise, but I didn't know that they were concerned about damage we did to French fields.

 

[OldSolduer]

:rofl:

Have you seen what passes for mission statements and concepts of operations these days?  I've seen Op Orders that rival War and Peace.

As G2G mentioned elsewhere, there has been a bit of a loss of SD in the military - there is actually no formal instruction anymore.  The system probably figured "hey, everyone has a degree so we don't need to teach them to write", failing to understand that SD is a technical skill, not an academic one.

Op Orders - the D Day Op Order was shorter than some.

I am going to weigh in on this one as a current DSM and future RSM.

What did I want from my officer- Pl Comd- when I was a Sgt? Tactical smarts and people (leadership) skills. I could care less what his/her degree was in or even if they had one.

What do I want from Pl Comds now? Tactical smarts and leadership skills. From Captains, good staff work (then I won't need to get involved). From Majors and above - a combination of experience and good judgement, tactical acumen and approachable.

As for each officer having a degree.....that I cannot comment on at this time. I think a good education is required - to what extent I have no idea.

 

[dcs]

For your consideration...

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo5/no2/military-militair-eng.asp

 

[quadrapiper]

For your consideration...

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo5/no2/military-militair-eng.asp

While the author of that article purports to defend the notion of degree-based instruction for officers, the points he makes regarding the exploration of knowledge, etc., make the whole notion sound like even more of a waste (especially for the junior, "tactically" oriented new officer) than before. Seems that sort of thing might, conceivably, have some value at a more senior level, or in some specific trades. Maybe.

I suspect that the various mental muscles theoretically exercised by four years of getting a degree would be better served by some form of in-element (and possibly even in-trade) OJT. Instead of, hypothetically speaking, teaching critical thinking and so on in the context of some field of knowledge that has nothing to do with the officer's role, and in an environment markedly dissimilar to the one the officer will be employed in, and then attempting to cross-deck those abilities to the real world, maybe combine (as much as possible) CF, elemental, and trade initial training with the block of knowledge marked "beneficial abilities gained by taking a degree."


On a tangent: with the eternal howling about ever-growing headquarters, it seems that capital-s Staff training should be delivered as early as possible, so more functions can be "safely" left with a well-trained cadre of company and battalion-level "staff"-aware officers. Maybe open the same training up to MWOs and CWOs headed for Sergeant Major and similar appointments.

 

[McG]

Someone should not be almost half way to a CD before they're trained..... (4-5 years undergrad)

To me, the four years earned toward a pension is more concerning.  A free education, and then the ability to retire with 4-5 years less service to the crown.  That doesn't seem right when the troops are working & deploying on operations that whole time to earn their pensions ... of course, I've proposed changes on that front in other threads.

I attribute much of the explosion in complexity to what I christened a couple of decades back as "staff work by photocopier."

Email has only made this worse.

... with the eternal howling about ever-growing headquarters, it seems that capital-s Staff training should be delivered as early as possible, so more functions can be "safely" left with a well-trained cadre of company and battalion-level "staff"-aware officers.

This could also turn-back the rank inflation that many perceive to be happening at various HQ levels.

 

[Furniture]

I'll start out by clearly stating that I neither have a degree nor am I an officer, but I am a Sgt with some limited TI. To me it seems rather odd that we require officers to hold a degree in underwater basket weaving, but don't require them to serve a period of time as followers... From the earliest time I learned about leadership until now I have been told followers make the best leaders. Why does a professional military like ours not require every officer to serve at least until the rank of Cpl before they commission? It would allow every potential candidate to be evaluated not only on their leadership, but also their military aptitude. Having a degree doesn't prove they are fit leaders, or that they are intelligent. It proves they had mom and dad's money to spend on a piece of paper.

Maybe I'll just go back to reading Heinline...

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I attribute much of the explosion in complexity to what I christened a couple of decades back as "staff work by photocopier." Instead of picking the gist of the matter from a pile of files, it was easier to just forward everything, along with some twaddle of your own, along with perhaps a cogent observation or two hidden in the bumpf to see if the recipients were paying attention. Now, add computers to the equation and it is too easy to demonstrate your brilliance by confusing volume for productive output.

I just looked up the 2nd Canadian Corps Operation Instruction for Operation Totalize in Normandy in August 1944. It is four pages long. Here is the "mission statement" and "concept of operations." I have put them in quotations because the Second World War terms were different. This was followed by just over two pages of tasks for the various subordinate formations and coordinating instructions. Anything more just gets in the way!

INTENTION.
5. To break through the enemy positions astride the CAEN-FALAISE road.

METHOD.
6. The operations will be conducted in three phases:

    (a) Phase 1 - Break through the FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358 - LA HOGUE 0960 position.

    (b) Phase 2 - Break through the HAUTMESNIL 0852 - ST SYLVAIN 1354 position.

    (c) Phase 3 - Exploit as ordered by Commander 2 Cdn Corps.

I hope that the Power Point presentation for this was prepped for the BuB so that the Col could review it for the CuB. 

 

[matthew1786]

Some of us students work long and hard to earn the financial stability needed in order to avoid debt and live somewhat decently. If the degree itself isn't worth anything in your eyes, completing the degree while working 24+ hours a week during school and 50+ hours a week during summer should count for something. What's worse is (in my case uniquely) my job involves constant and direct action in having to deal with all the students that are protesting against tuition hikes in Quebec. As a student who advocates against them and their actions, the entire process has become exceedingly strenuous yet I continue to give it my all while succeeding; that is what makes me a stronger person. And although I don't know for sure, I like to think that dealing with all this crap will, one day, make me a better officer... 

And so, I politely ask those who may have negatively criticised undergrads in a general fashion, to please reconsider. Generalizing against all students is blatantly ignorant, and I would not expect that kind of attitude from any member of the CF; whatever their role. I'm sure there are a vast amount of undergrads out there who have everything paid for by their families and do the bare minimum; which is the general-student-model that most have seemed to of based their "officers don't need a degree" arguments upon (in those cases you all make valid points).  But don't ever forget that there are some of us who live alone, have never seen a penny of support from their families all while avoiding any kind of debt, always striving to do their best while succeeding, and then some. This, just as one mere example, are the kinds of hardships that an OCdt should have to deal with in their pursuit of obtaining a degree. And again although I don't know for sure, I would assume that ideally speaking, these are the kinds of people that the CF is trying to recruit into their officer programs.

To any young hopefuls reading this, don't waste your energy trying to find reasons on how or why an officer would or wouldn't be a better leader with or without a degree... Right now, you're going to need one, so do everything in your power to just get it done.  :2c:

Anyway, I do have one question that pulls away from this debate. The question is, based on your experiences, how do you think this news (see OP's linked article) will affect ROTP selections for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, if at all? Thanks!

Cheers.

 

[opp550]

What's worse is (in my case uniquely) my job involves constant and direct action in having to deal with all the students that are protesting against tuition hikes in Quebec.

Just curious, what job is this?

 

[matthew1786]

Just curious, what job is this?

Private security at an anglophone University in the heart of downtown Montreal (not willing to say more than that). 

 

[Furniture]

Maybe I'm missing some mystic quality that is granted by attending a degree program from an accredited university, but I have yet so see a concrete example from a university grad that proves a degree makes them better officers... Maybe my under educated mind has failed to grasp the complexity of this situation....

 

[Good2Golf]

Matthew, don't misinterpret what many here are saying...it's not that a degree is a bad thing in and of itself.  The question that many may be asking regards the direct applicability or value of a degree that an officer might likely take relative to the duties that the officer will most certainly be required to perform within the profession of arms. 

It's not that people are point-blank railing against an education, whether military college or civilian university, or an undergraduate or post-graduate degree.  Heck, I received an undergraduate degree in the sciences from a military college, then pursued a post-graduate degree in electrical engineering and am currently working on a public administration degree.  That said, as I noted earlier, I believe that some of the best education I ever received that related to my conducting assigned duties and responsibilities as an officer included: training tailored specifically to aid officers perform professional staff duties to include critical thought, analysis and deductive reasoning; completing a year-long course designed specifically for assessing technical systems development and acquisition; and the practical experiences from working with all levels of CF personnel from privates through generals (and I dare say I learned more from the NCMs on the whole, than I did from not all, but certainly many senior to me).

In the end, if properly appreciated, the benefit from completing a degree will assist, but not provide all the skills than an officer will need to be succuessful in his or her military career.  Critical and reasoned thinking, openness to learn from others (particularly those who may be 'organizationally' subordinate to them), and a continued drive to improve one's self and contribute to the organization should all be marques of a well-educated (part by 'books', and part by 'life') officer.

Your mileage may vary, but I think that there will at least be a few folks with some years in who might concur with me.

Regards
G2G

 

[jwtg]

Maybe I'm missing some mystic quality that is granted by attending a degree program from an accredited university, but I have yet so see a concrete example from a university grad that proves a degree makes them better officers... Maybe my under educated mind has failed to grasp the complexity of this situation....

I don't think you'll ever find this.  I think you'll find that there are good and bad officers with and without degrees.  I argue that sometimes the ingredients are more important than how they're cooked.

What I mean by this is a weak candidate with or without a degree is going to become a weak officer.  A strong candidate with or without a degree can become a strong officer because he/she is a better 'ingredient.'  I would even step over the line a little bit and say that by providing a university education, you give that strong candidate a greater opportunity to develop some of the important skills that have been talked about.  I have yet to see anyone argue that a university education is a bad thing; rather, it seems that the question is whether or not a university education is worth its expense.  It is, at the very least, a good thing, but maybe not necessary.  If you give this good thing to a strong candidate, you can produce a great officer.  If you give this good thing to a weak candidate, you likely are wasting resources and producing an officer who exemplifies why a degree is not enough to make a leader.  I guess my point is, if you have good candidates, more education can only make for better officers.  For the examples we've read of NCOs without degrees who outperform their 'more' educated officers, how much more capable could they be if they had a degree in addition to their training and experience?  (Also, how much more worthless might those weaker officers be if they didn't at least have their education  > )  Unless you make the argument that a university degree is actually a bad thing, then we must conclude that our personnel are (or could be) better for having (or if they had) them.

Food for thought: Does having the ROTP and a subsidized degree program improve the pool of applicants to the CF for officer positions?  There is no doubt in my mind that the ROTP is very beneficial for the member- it certainly  makes for an attractive career opportunity (subsidized education + salary during school + guaranteed job upon graduation + 4 yrs pensionable service under your belt when you graduate) and the more attractive the opportunity, the more broad the pool of candidates.  More candidates means more good candidates- and yes, more bad candidates.  Hopefully recruiting can sort through them and by having a subsidized education program, the CF can benefit by enrolling better candidates.

Sure, this might seem like a benefit with minimal impact, but I just wanted to think about it from the angle of the opportunity it presents to the CF and potential applicants.

 

[matthew1786]

@ Good2Golf
Thanks. Very clearly stated and I can't argue anything you said. But...

any insight on the question I asked? 

Anyway, I do have one question that pulls away from this debate. The question is, based on your experiences, how do you think this news (see OP's linked article) will affect ROTP selections for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, if at all? Thanks!