dapaterson said:
/off topic rant
AOC is pointless; lots of busy work but little to stretch the mind. Anyone who grinds away will pass; if you reach ENDEX you're a grad regardless of your competence. Since no one who reaches the end fails, there are no Fs. Since everyone passes, no one can be given a C-, in theory the lowest mark, since that would show "Should have failed, but we let them slip through.". Since the highest possible mark is a B, and less than 1 in 20 will get that mark, you end up with almost all the course crammed into "C" - but the DS will lie to you and claim there's a difference between a "strong C" and a "weak C".
A true staff course with standards would be a welcome change; the current one is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Close the fort and turn it into condos.
Moderators - would a thread split be in order?
I'd like to address the nonsense quoted above.
I've just finished my third year as a member of the AOC Directing Staff, have instructed on eight iterations of Tutorial One and two of Tutorial Two, and served as a mentor to battle group and brigade headquarters staffs during Exercise FINAL DRIVE (the nine-day capstone exercise for the AOC) on two occasions.
AOC students are indeed very busy, and deservedly so, as they have a lot of ground to cover in a brief period of time. The typical combat arms student begins the course with a fairly solid background in sub-sub-unit and sub-unit doctrine and TTPs; the non-combat arms officers less than that. In 18 weeks, they must progress to the point where they can serve as competent staff officers in battle group and formation headquarters in all kinds of operations (conventional warfighting, counter-insurgency, peace support, domestic, etc.). That requires a capacity for hard work and to grow intellectually. I see that growth on every course - the men and women that leave the Fort are not the same as those that enter.
Since the "train all" approach to the AOC was adopted, a small number of officers have failed. This usually happens quite early in the course, during Tutorial One, as that is where the performance and enabling objective gateways lie (exams on friendly doctrine and opposing force doctrine, as well as the written estimate of the situation and operations order exercises). I'm sad to say that I've been unable to help two of my students achieve the required performance standard, and they were returned to their units as training failures.
Therefore, if you have reached the end of the course, you have demonstrated the minimum levels of competence required to make a positive contribution as a staff officer in a battle group or formation headquarters. That's the AOC's remit and we fill that remit very well. Battle group commanders, commanders of joint task forces at home and overseas, and the CLS keep telling us that.
That said, a C- is a pass. It means that you have met the minimum standard of performance required to complete the course and be granted the qualification "plsc". However, course reports make the employability and potential of graduates clear to their chains of command and applicable promotion boards. Promotion boards look at the AOC course report seriously and, depending on MOC, at the letter grade.
Finally, the grade distribution over the last three years has been roughly 10% B, another 25-30% C+, and the rest C. C- grades are given out sparingly.
In summary, we do have standards, we DS do enforce them, some do not make the grade and leave as failures, and general officers employing AOC graduates on operations want more of them, not less.
Any questions?
