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

[mariomike]

I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.

4.2.4 Commissioning Plan
http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530400.pdf
page 28

 

[ballz]

4.2.4 Commissioning Plan
http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530400.pdf
page 28

Awesome, thanks for that find, I've often wondered the same thing about the numbers.

A 1998 survey of ROTP cadets at RMC found that roughly four in ten of the students indicated
that they intended to remain in the CF after completing their obligatory service. A roughly equal
number indicated that they intended to leave. Those who felt that the education subsidy was
important to them were most likely to indicate that they intended to leave the CF after the period
of obligatory service (Environics, 1998b).

A more recent study indicated that only 9% of ROTP officers left immediately upon completion
of obligatory service. (This is in sharp contrast to the percentage who, years before, indicated that
they intended to leave at this point.) This figure can be compared to 6% for UTPNCM officers
(Audet, 2004).

I'm surprised and a little disappointed that 40% indicated they had planned on getting out as soon as their OS was over. Of course, I'm not surprised that after 4-5 years or so of service and seniority in the CF that most decided to stay in for two reasons.
1. Most probably couldn't walk into the private sector and make a Captain's salary, not to mention all the other great financial benefits of being in the CF
2. After five years, they probably realized they loved being in the CF a lot more than they did at RMC (would have been interesting to see Civie U applicants surveyed as well).

I don't think a 9% attrition rate after OS is served is bad, in might be lower than I expected. Also, what's with this "after their VIE" thing? My VIE is 13 years long including my university. If I decide after 9 years of service that I want to move on to something else, how am I taking advantage of the CF?

Is this the same "if you're not joining for 25 years don't join at all" mentality? Or the whole thing about not joining the CF as an NCM to do the initial contact, get experience, then leave after the initial 3-year engagement, etc?

 

[captloadie]

After trying to stop myself for 2 days now from posting, I finally can't stop myself from making one little comment. RMC is not, or at least wasn't when I attended, just a university that granted a degree. There are four pillars required to graduate, and the academics is only one. It is taking young men and women and indoctrinating them into the military. Yes, it may not be the "real world" but it is better than getting to a unit with no military bearing except what is picked up at BMOQ. Some of the earlier comments made on how a degree made no difference in their ability to interact at senior levels need to remember that they are probably speaking from a senior NCM position with 15+ years of experience. Not a wet behind the ears Lt with maybe 6 years experience. Would you let your Ptes or junior Cpls lead a Pl or draft your staff papers (the majority of them, not the exceptionally bright one)? Yet this is what is expected of junior officers. Maybe the degree doesn't help, but some of the experience they get from RMC will (or at least should).

I am also in favour of returning the college to a more military focused establishment. Not dumbing down the degree programs, nor restricting the types of programs, but reinstilling some of the old traditions to remind cadets they aren't Queens students who wear funny hats.

 

[Maxadia]

Getting back to the original topic here, there are a few questions that need to be answered:

a) does the CF really need three separate colleges? Could they be amalgamated into one, or even two (one west, one east?)

b) what changes could be made in the delivery of instruction that would increase the quality of exiting attendees?

c) what types of instruction should be included to ensure that candidates will receive a well-rounded education - instruction outside the realm of a military slant?


IMO, I don't see the need for three colleges unless we have an overwhelming amount of candidates and we do not have enough room for them all.  Amalgamating into even two should be a reduction of at least 20% facilities/utilities costs, if you take into fact that you may need to expand a little to accommodate some of the extra students from the third college.

I think we all value the importance of a "military slanted" education, but no one I think here is expecting that every course is going to be war,war,war.  There would, of course, have to be core courses in English (reading and writing), etc.

 

[captloadie]

I'm a little confused on the 3 colleges angle. Are we considering Toronto to be one of the three? If so, I'd say we are mixing apples and oranges. Nothing that Toronto offers can be equated with RMC (even the MA I believed is granted by RMCC). Toronto, to me, is more akin to any other of the CF Schools.

 

[Maxadia]

That number represents more than a third of the approximately 185 faculty teaching at Canada's military colleges: Royal Military College in Kingston, the Canadian Forces College in Toronto and the Royal Military College campus in Saint-Jean, Que.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm a little confused on the 3 colleges angle. Are we considering Toronto to be one of the three? If so, I'd say we are mixing apples and oranges. Nothing that Toronto offers can be equated with RMC (even the MA I believed is granted by RMCC). Toronto, to me, is more akin to any other of the CF Schools.

Toronto does more military education than Kingston.  Kingston is a university with military trappings; Toronto is a military college.

 

[captloadie]

I whole heartedly agree. I would like to see RMC go back to being a military college with Academic trappings, like CMR and RRMC were known for.

 

[dapaterson]

But, to bring this thread full circle, do we need an undergraduate degree granting military college?  Or can we get the academic side more affordably and with greater variety from the civilian sector, and turn RMC into a "military finishing school", for lack of a better term?

And should we even have an ROTP program?  Could we address our officer production needs exclusively through DEOs?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Many, many years ago RMC was a four year college that did not award degrees. Officers got a military education with many specialized courses; they could go into a wide range of jobs, including engineer officers, with their RMC diplomas. Those who wanted or needed degrees could go to another university (most often Queens) for two (easy) semesters and earn one.


Edit: spelling  :-[

 

[Strike]

And should we even have an ROTP program?  Could we address our officer production needs exclusively through DEOs?

DP - if you go the purely DEO route you risk eliminating a whole pool of potential applicants who may not be able to afford to get a university degree for whatever reason.  I was one of those - I qualified for scholarships but they were a pittance compared to tuition, books and lab fees.  I didn't qualify for OSAP and I/my parents would never have qualified for a loan of that amount.

I'm pretty sure that the CF has gotten their pound of flesh back from me at this point.

 

[George Wallace]

DP - if you go the purely DEO route you risk eliminating a whole pool of potential applicants who may not be able to afford to get a university degree for whatever reason. 

This could be a point of discussion.  Does one's inability to use their initiative and work ethic work as an indicator as to whom should gain entry into institutions of higher learning?  Does our "Welfare State" in it's giving people a "free ride" really benefit the nation, and in this case the CF?

 

[dapaterson]

DP - if you go the purely DEO route you risk eliminating a whole pool of potential applicants who may not be able to afford to get a university degree for whatever reason.  I was one of those - I qualified for scholarships but they were a pittance compared to tuition, books and lab fees.  I didn't qualify for OSAP and I/my parents would never have qualified for a loan of that amount.

I'm pretty sure that the CF has gotten their pound of flesh back from me at this point.

But is ROTP the best method to address those people?  Or would a COTC construct do it as well, for less money?  You'd need to cast a wider net, true, but would the costs be significantly different?

"We've always done it this way" is never a reason to continue things.  "Is there a better way?" is the question we should ask.

 

[Maxadia]

There may be all sorts of reasons why someone may not be able to afford to go to college....increasing tuition costs will only make that worse.  Sometimes it is not work ethic and initiative alone (or lack of) that keeps people from being able to afford university.

I do think that if we are going to have a military college, it should offer military degrees.  And I don't think they should be offered at academic colleges.  You can still offer some courses outside the military vein, in order to give a well-rounded education.  You shouldn't be going to a university that specializes mainly in medicine in order to get an engineering degree, for example.

Does anyone have numbers on the positions filled each year coming from DEO as opposed to ROTP?

 

[captloadie]

Would you then advocate scrapping the UTPNCM program as well? We could just CFR the best and brightest, and as many seem to think so far, they wouldn't need a degree. I would ask as well, what drives them to go UT as opposed to CFR, other than the belief that a degree must be a good thing?

 

[Jed]

I will tentatively add my  :2c:. I believe there is definite value added in the CF obtaining the officers through all the various methods. Milcol, DEO, CFR, UTPM, OCTP widen the breadth of knowledge and abilities from all facets of society and help the CF connect with the rest of Canadian Society.

Do we need the three some what separate institutions to develop the degreed officer percentage of this mix? I don't think so. We probably can do this more efficiently and economically with less infrastructure and civilian staffing.

 

[dapaterson]

I do think that if we are going to have a military college, it should offer military degrees.  And I don't think they should be offered at academic colleges.  You can still offer some courses outside the military vein, in order to give a well-rounded education.  You shouldn't be going to a university that specializes mainly in medicine in order to get an engineering degree, for example.

A poor example.  I can't think of a single major Canadian university with  a medical school that does not also have a significant engineering program - McGill, U of T, Dal...

Does anyone have numbers on the positions filled each year coming from DEO as opposed to ROTP?

Ballpark: about 3:2, ROTP to DEO (varies year to year).  There are also a variety of other intake plans that are roughly equivalent to the DEO numbers (CEOTP, OTs, UTPNCM, CFR, SRCP...)

 

[Strike]

But is ROTP the best method to address those people?  Or would a COTC construct do it as well, for less money?  You'd need to cast a wider net, true, but would the costs be significantly different?

"We've always done it this way" is never a reason to continue things.  "Is there a better way?" is the question we should ask.

Then a DEO-only route shouldn't be part of the question then should it, if you're looking at COTC/OCTP/CEOTP, etc.

Personally, I'm happy I got the degree before starting my career.  I was way too immature and not in the least bit worldly (read - naive) to have been successful in the CF if I had joined right out of high school.  That university degree, the time it took to get it and the experiences I had during those 4 years taught me what I needed to do in order to be successful (in my eyes).

Could a civilian university have done the same for me?  Who knows.  I didn't go to a civvie U so I just can't answer that question.

 

[Maxadia]

A poor example.  I can't think of a single major Canadian university with  a medical school that does not also have a significant engineering program - McGill, U of T, Dal...

Way to go, seeing the trees instead of the forest....

Fine...fine....how about going to a university that specializes in medicine to obtain a degree in Ukrainian language?

 

[blacktriangle]

Would you then advocate scrapping the UTPNCM program as well? We could just CFR the best and brightest, and as many seem to think so far, they wouldn't need a degree. I would ask as well, what drives them to go UT as opposed to CFR, other than the belief that a degree must be a good thing?

Well just look at the differences between the two commissioning plans, and that should answer your questions as to why some people want to go the UTPNCM route...

For me at least, should I apply, it would not be based on getting a degree alone. I like to learn and would love to complete my degree sooner rather than later. But I know for a fact it won't make me a better officer...