Utility of AOC

[dapaterson]

You have me thoroughly confused.  Not your fault, after all, I was confused when I was first told the rating system for AOC.  Here's how I translated it (in my own mind):
A: You are Patton mixed with Guderian, Scipio Africanus and Rommel (Nobody got the "A")
B: Exceeded the standard
C+: Met the standard without difficulty
C: Met the standard
C-: Met the standard with difficulty

This isn't how I think it should be, ought to be or anything, just how I interpreted the rating system.

I have a slightly different understanding of the system:

A : You Know Too Much.  Made the DS look bad.  Next posting:  Alert.
B : Smarter than the DS, but didn't make them feel as bad as an A student.
C+ : Exceeded the standard, but pissed off the DS somehow, keeping you from being a B student.
C : The level of mediocrity that all should aspire to.  Course standard dictates that two thirds of students must fall into this narrow band.  However, somehow there is a difference between a Strong C and a Weak C, even though they are the same.  A very existentially challenging evaluation.
C- : Student should have failed, lacking the knowledge and ability to succeed, but since they somehow made it to the end we'll pass them anyways.
F :  On the keyboard, between "D" and G"", both of which are also unused in evaluations.

 

[Old Sweat]

I had promised myself that I would stay out of the fray, but keeping my thoughts to myself is not by strong suit.

First, the statement was made that lore has it that there had been only two As awarded since the college opened in 1946.

I know of at least two As from the 1965-1966 course, while there were at least two on my course (1970-1971), one of whom was a Canadian. We had some really good people on our course, including a future CGS of the Pakistan army.

The CASC and the CLFCSC as it became with unification seems to have suffered from a tendency to believe that intense stress was an instructional tool. I had believed this was normal until I discussed staff training with a retired Royal Mariine who went to the USMC college. He told me that when he was first told he was going to a foreign staff college, he was in a panic because he thought it might be Kingston. Our army staff college had a reputation of all work and very little play. In contrast, he found Quantico a pleasant experience with the students treated like adults and with ample time for relaxation. I assured him that his assesment of Kingston was not too far off the mark. We worked through the March school break for example, and 25 to 35 hours study/work outside normal class hours was the norm for the 11 months of our course. Having said that, I sure learned how to write an appreciation and operation order, and still can nearly 40 years since the course and 15 years after I retired. Certainly the first time I had to do it for real, my training kicked in and I was able to concentrate on the issues at hand calmly, efficiently and effectively. Whether I would have learned as well in other than an environment that seemed to have been modelled on The Hill, a British fim about a military prison is moot. (Just kidding, mostly, it was the intellectual equivalent of the Ranger Course.)

I'll close by suggesting that people should not sweat the grades and the assessment unless one is really keen on becoming the CDS, or if you are recommended for gelding to prevent you propagating on the other hand. The use you make of the course as part of your overall training and development is what is really important. And yes, I feel staff training is not for everyone and any attempt to make it so will just water down the results and the reputation of the course.

 

[armyvern]

You have me thoroughly confused.  Not your fault, after all, I was confused when I was first told the rating system for AOC.  Here's how I translated it (in my own mind):
A: You are Patton mixed with Guderian, Scipio Africanus and Rommel (Nobody got the "A")
B: Exceeded the standard
C+: Met the standard without difficulty
C: Met the standard
C-: Met the standard with difficulty

This isn't how I think it should be, ought to be or anything, just how I interpreted the rating system.

Not trying to confuse you Rambler ...

I'm getting my thoughts from Ex-Royal ... who is staff on the AOC and has explained it thus:

An "A" isn't impossible, but show me a Capt who is ". . . capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up" (i.e, at the rank of LCol) and I'll show you an "A".  Anecdotal evidence is that only two of the thousands of officers who have graduated the AOC (or its equivalent) since the establishment of the Canadian Army Staff College in 1946 have received that grade.

On your second and third points, I can't answer with authority as I'm not employed in standards.  The two courses that I've attended at CF educational (vice training) institutions have not followed the CFITES guidelines that you've cited.  CLFCSC uses letter grades (F, C-, C, C+, B and A) and associated word pictures (fail, met minimum standard, met standard, exceeded standard, mastered and capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up respectively); CFC uses two word pictures (strong pass and pass, if I recall correctly) but no letter grade.

Ergo, I get:

F: Fail
C-: Met Minimum Standard (But wait!! "C" is the actual "met standard" - no??)
C: Met Standard (But wait!! People did worse than this and still passed!!)
C+: Exceeded Standard
B: Mastered
A: Patton: capable of executing the skill at two rank levels up respectively

Either you meet the standard for the course - or you don't. So, if people with "Cs" are just "meeting the standard" as per Ex-Royals comments and input based upon his being DS for this course ... how can anything be below that and still be a "pass'?

See where I'm coming from now? You're confused? So am I. What a crap system of marking. First course I've seen with official double standards built into it.

 

[The Anti-Royal]

Midnight Rambler's translation of the word pictures associated with letter grades appears to be more useful than the one in current use.  Regardless of the words used, everything above an "F" is a pass.  Passes are sub-divided into four categories of performance.

Re:  his comment about selection by merit, I must assume that career managers consider a multitude of factors in course loading.  Proximity to an operational tour, availability for training, readiness for the demands of the curriculum and others come to mind.  Since the target student for the AOC is a Capt with 3-5 years in rank, I'd guess that many that are loaded haven't made an appearance on a promotion list, and may not until well after graduation.

Re: dapaterson's last post - there are no quotas for Bs, C+s, Cs, etc, at the AOC.  If you had been paying attention, you would have taken notice of what I'd said earlier.  I've never heard a statement at the nine grading conferences I've attended that, "Bloggins can't get a C+ because we'd go over our traditional quantity of C+s".

C- does not equate to "student should have failed".  The very few students that prove to be incapable of meeting the standard (which is, I repeat, capable of contributing positively as a staff officer in a battle group or formation headquarters), do fail.

I don't understand what you mean by the term, "existentially challenging".

 

[exgunnertdo]

Surely, if you are following the principles espoused in CFITES (which applies to all Schools, CF-wide), about 10% of your students should get an A, about 25% a "B" and the rest that pass, some form of a C.

CFITES does not, in principle or in reality, state that.  What you're talking about is a "normal distribution," or bell curve.  It's a statistical model.  Norm-referenced standards (which is what that breakdown is) are not part of CFITES, and shouldn't be part of a school's practice.  CFITES actually states it is "not an appropriate form of testing military IT&E."  (CFITES Vol 7, p. 5)  (emphasis on "not" is from CFITES, not mine).

What schools should be doing is "criterion referenced assessment."  Grading students against a standard.  Following the principles of CFITES would actually have course reports not using letter grades, but simply pass/fail, with a much greater emphasis on the narrative to describe individual students' strengths and weaknesses.  But military culture is hard to change, we like to put people in boxes (or bubbles, as the case may be! ;D)

What the college uses is criterion referenced, even though the letters are off from what other CF schools use.  I don't have a real issue with the break down of the C grade.  If you got a C-, you struggled, but made it, C is an average grade (average amount of difficulty, it is a hard course, after all), and C+ is met the standard with no difficulty.  But all C's meet the standard, it more describes how much difficulty you had getting there.  B:  exceeded the standard, and A is, as others have said, having the ability to work 2 ranks up.

I have taken the course, got a C.  There were a couple of C-'s on my course, and they did struggle, but IMHO (working with them on course), they still met the standard.

And Mods - is it possible to fix the thread title to spell Maj Mendes' name correctly?  Thanks!

 

[dapaterson]

"Existentially challenging" refers to the fraud of "Weak C" vs "Strong C" that certain staff perpetuate.  A C is a C.  A grading system should provide an indication of ability; the current system which sees roughly 2/3 of students lumped into a single small band provides little useful information.

My comments have been perhaps a tad harsh, but the current course provides a common level of mediocrity.  It should aspire to more, by being selective - not on the basis of the multiple guess quizzes online or the timed estimate exam, but by a more detailed, honest assessment by leadership to determine the best candidates prior to course loading.  All folks do not need staff training - heresy, I know.  But a truth; providing a course that most can pass versus one that requires pre-selection results in a lower quality/higher quantity output.  Do we want fewer good staff, or more poor staff?

Finally, any course standard as wishy-washy as "capable of contributing positively as a staff officer in a battle group or formation headquarters" deserves scorn.  Broad, vague, imprecise - someone who makes good coffee "contributes positively to a BG or formation HQ" - so the student on AOC always sent to Timmies for a pickup to keep them out of the way while the rest of the students do the work would pass?

ExgunnerTDO: Providing valid evaluation information with more depth than Pass/Fail is needed for any real-world course evaluation.  Provided a consistent evaluation framework is used, information can be mapped against other evaluations to identify success factors, and refine selection mechanisms, to better identify skills and aptitudes needed.  Binary metrics reduce the efficacity of statistical analysis.

Particularly as we face a tight workforce, the ability to select appropriate individuals and steer them to career fields where they have the greatest opportunities for success is a key enabler.  If we lack the data to identify that we're doing ourselves no favours.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Particularly as we face a tight workforce, the ability to select appropriate individuals and steer them to career fields where they have the greatest opportunities for success is a key enabler.  If we lack the data to identify that we're doing ourselves no favours.

I have to agree.

AOC is a model developed to meet Cold War, massive 'trip wire' type army needs fed by the bloated numbers of the boomer generations. Unfortunately, the British Army retains much of the same content and approach in their JSCSC training programme. We need to rethink the way we train our staff officers to meet the needs of present and future conflicts with the current and future generation of officer.

Oh, and I also propose (sharp intake of breath) that we open these courses up to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks. It's ridiculous to think that only 30 year old Captains are capable of drafting op orders or marking up a map for Bde orders. In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...

And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.

 

[armyvern]

In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...

And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.

1) Too true; and

2) I'm imagining it now.  8)

 

[The Anti-Royal]

So "existentially challenging" is ten-dollar term devoid of meaning?

The grading system does reflect reality.  Very few master a skill at the first go-around, a few more do it quite well, most do it fine given a bit of help, a few need a lot of help, a very few won't get it given unlimited help.  That applies regardless of the skill being taught.

I completed my six-month Army staff course in 1995.  Throughput was approximately 120 per year.  That's not enough.  We were already short in 1995, and the need for staff-trained Capts has increased due to the complexity of operations.  Producing around 180-200 per year is going a long way to solving the problem.

In comparing the two courses (as a student 15 years ago, and as a DS now), I don't see a lot of differences in difficulty.  In fact, the new one may be a little harder.  The old course prepared officers for employment in the staffs of brigades and divisionals; the new at battle group and brigade.  However, I would argue that battle groups could be considered the new brigades (extrapolate further if you wish) given the contemporary operating environment.

Therefore, your premise (that course standards have dropped to accommodate the "train all" philosophy) is untrue.

The application of intelligence, creativity, curiousity and energy are difficult to measure objectively.  If you can offer a course standard that's less (as you put it) wishy-washy, I'd love to hear it.

And for your last point (selection of appropriate individuals and steering them into career fields . . .) - are you proposing a general staff system for the Army/CF?

 

[McG]

The Staff College in Kingston is a critical institution that begins the transformation of an officer from his comfort zone of the low-level tactical fight at company level into an officer that understands the larger tactical picture and can operate within a staff employing OPP. To me, it is what enables our officer corps to be a truly professional officer corps.

My impression is that the Army is happy with the standard of the graduates.

I like to compare AOC to the really big block buster movie that everyone is talking about and you are the last person to go see it.  Going in, your expectations are very high, and you are anticipating some great life changing event.  Unfortunately, at the end you've only seen a good movie and are a little let down ... except, I think AOC was only an "adaquate movie."

It does cover important material and provide an important learning venue for the Army.  However, I don't think it is everything that some of the course disciples claim it to be.  I did not find it particularly challenging.  I think there were several times oportunities were not exploited to drive home deeper lessons on staff operations.  I think some people were allowed to wallow in thier comfort areas (both 'B' students and "low C" students).  I think the CFLCSC lacks the manpower to develop, maintain, and deliver the top quality programme that we would desire.

Despite that, AOC is an adequate course and I don't doubt that the Army as a whole benefits from it.

... people should not sweat the grades and the assessment unless one is really keen on becoming the CDS, or if you are recommended for gelding to prevent you propagating on the other hand.

Maybe.  However, when the commandant's introduction address to the course hammers on the position that merit board "recognize the significance of" and highly wieght the LFCSC course report ... well, if it is true then a disservice is being done to both the members and to the whole Canadian Forces if those course reports are not being written accurately and with a relevant meriting criteria.

... 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.

The write ups are taken seriously, and though I eeked out a C+, I was very pleased with my write up.  (That's "Cee-Plus", not a typo for 'Cee-minus', just to be clear ;D) 

Getting stressed about Cs adn Bs doesn't really achieve anything, either as a student on AOC or a critic of the institution. As has been said it is the narrative that really matters.

I am strongly skeptical that the naratives compensate for the defeciencies of the letter grading system.  I state this knowing DS to have handed students thier course reports with an appologiy because narative does not do the students' performance justice.  The narratives were conformed to the letter grade and less so to the student performance.  We see that the letter grades are awarded as:

A: Exceeded the LCol's standard
B: Greatly exceeded the standard
C+: Exceeded the standard
C: Met the standard
C-: Met the standard with significant difficulty

However, 66 to 75% of students are lumped into that 'C' and CFLCSC standards dictate that the narrative cannot differentiate between "easily met standard" and "met standard with some difficulty."  Students may only be described as having "met the standard."  With that restriction in place, there is nothing to assist the promotion boards in segregating the bottom third from the middle third.

... the fraud of "Weak C" vs "Strong C" that certain staff perpetuate.  A C is a C.  A grading system should provide an indication of ability; the current system which sees roughly 2/3 of students lumped into a single small band provides little useful information.

That's pretty close to my thoughts.

In the end, I don't see the grading system as CLFCSC's greatest problem though.   

 

[exgunnertdo]

ExgunnerTDO: Providing valid evaluation information with more depth than Pass/Fail is needed for any real-world course evaluation.  Provided a consistent evaluation framework is used, information can be mapped against other evaluations to identify success factors, and refine selection mechanisms, to better identify skills and aptitudes needed.  Binary metrics reduce the efficacity of statistical analysis.

More depth is definitely required than pass/fail.  I would never suggest that pass/fail alone is enough.  Letter grades do tend to make people want to move towards that bell curve, though.  People start to scrutinize when too many or not enough people fall into a certain grade.  That's what we're doing here, isn't it?  There is a perception that there is a problem since there are not enough A's, too many C's and good grief, how come there aren't more F's?  The Staff College isn't fitting the bell curve, and it makes people question what they're doing. 

I just threw that out there since SeaKingTacco suggested that CFITES advocates the application of a normal distribution in the assignment of grades, when in fact it's the opposite.  Letter grades can be used, but there is a danger in slipping toward the bell curve, then the letter grades are meaningless outside of the context of that particular course.  Top/middle/bottom third is gone from the CF377 now because of that fact.  Middle third on one course may have been bottom on the next and top on the one before.

The fact that this discussion is going on is a good reason to question why and if we really need letter grades on courses.  (I'm not saying we don't, just that questioning why is a good thing.)

 

[Gunner98]

I have to agree.

Oh, and I also propose (sharp intake of breath) that we open these courses up to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks. It's ridiculous to think that only 30 year old Captains are capable of drafting op orders or marking up a map for Bde orders. In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...

And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.

I was led to believe that there is sufficient coverage of these areas on ILQ/ALQ.  At least my RSM seemed to be struggling with the estimate and OPP processes.

 

[OldSolduer]

I was led to believe that there is sufficient coverage of these areas on ILQ/ALQ.  At least my RSM seemed to be struggling with the estimate and OPP processes.

I took the old SLC in 91 so I can't comment on the new ILQ/ALQ.

What I do know is that perhaps the AOC should have a few WO/MWO or CWOs or two on it, as students to advise the young captains and future Commanding Officers in what troops can and cannot do. At least that's my perspective.
I was always taught, by two officers (one is now pretty high up there) that everyone should know the job two levels up. ie Sect Commanders should be able to fill in briefly as Pl & Coy Comds if the need arises.
So why not send some bright WOs/MWO's on the AOC?

 

[Michael OLeary]

F :  On the keyboard, between "D" and G"", both of which are also unused in evaluations.

There is no "D" because we didn't want it confused with the "old school" Distinguished Pass notation of "D".  Eventually, some TDO will write a paper on how the last member who ever took a course with Pass/Distnguished Pass gradings has died and will receive a Commendation for recommending the "D" be resurrected as a grade, to be used as a grade slightly below "C-", but still not quite "F".  A further study will be required to examine "E".

This will cause old staff officers to spin in their graves, not unlike when auto-paragraph numbering led to the acceptance of sub-para "i".

 

[Michael OLeary]

So why not send some bright WOs/MWO's on the AOC?

I know that a few years ago there was a plan to load some MWO's on the AOC (starting about 2006 if I recall correctly). The driving requirement was to start getting some knowledge and skillsets supporting digitized headquarters outside that "30-year-old Captain" group, so that critical requirement in digital headquarters wouldn't become officers' fingers on keyboards. I was under the impression at the time that NCM Career Managers were even warning people for the course.  I guess this plan died.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I completed my six-month Army staff course in 1995. 

Hmmm - so did I - 9502....

Dave

 

[vonGarvin]

AOC is a model developed to meet Cold War, massive 'trip wire' type army needs fed by the bloated numbers of the boomer generations. Unfortunately, the British Army retains much of the same content and approach in their JSCSC training programme. We need to rethink the way we train our staff officers to meet the needs of present and future conflicts with the current and future generation of officer.

Oh, and I also propose (sharp intake of breath) that we open these courses up to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks. It's ridiculous to think that only 30 year old Captains are capable of drafting op orders or marking up a map for Bde orders. In reality, they are doing this now in many parts of our army anyways. Might as well make sure they get the same training...

And I can only imagine what constume Vern would be wearing when she christens the ground for her syndicates' presentation.

I disagree that AOC is irrelevant in today's war.  It teaches officers how to solve problems, come up with solutions, and then manage those solutions for commanders.  I used OPP over 100 times in a previous 7.5 month period.  It works.  I do believe that the process pre-dates the Cold War, and even predates Germany as a state.  In fact, one could argue that the state of Germany owes its existance to the processes taught on AOC.  The method of training those skills may evolve over time (and I'm pretty sure that they have.
As for WO's on this course, I would argue "no".  A Pl 2IC, CQMS or what have you does not plan or operate at this level, much as a Lt or jr. Capt does not plan or operate as this level.  For MWO, I could see an "NCM version" of the course being run.  If they wish to lead OPP cycles, then they can put in for their commission and suffer like the rest of us pointy heads.  As for CWOs, there is the CO/RSM course that the college conducts.  It reviews OPP and the like for CO designates and brings the RSM designates up to speed.

 

[vonGarvin]

This will cause old staff officers to spin in their graves, not unlike when auto-paragraph numbering led to the acceptance of sub-para "i".

Don't forget sub-paras "o" and "l".  (No "oil" in military writing, as I recall.  I still catch myself from time to time ignoring those letters when I do sub-paras.  But I digress!)

 

[The Anti-Royal]

Hmmm - so did I - 9502....

Dave

We were in the same syndicate in two of three tutorials.

These are the Daves I know, I know, these are the Daves I know.

I still cringe when I remember a bunch of us belting out Bohemian Rhapsody at the Fort Hood O club.  Could any of us carry a tune in a bucket?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Don't forget sub-paras "o" and "l".  (No "oil" in military writing, as I recall.  I still catch myself from time to time ignoring those letters when I do sub-paras.  But I digress!)

I was trying to make a point without being unnecessarily pedantic, but someone had to drag out the "Never Pass [up an opportunity to publicly point out] a Fault" clause.    ;D