Mark C:
I would tentatively support PBI's contention that PSE "can't hurt". But I would also argue that it provides nothing of quantifiable benefit at the entry to mid-levels of commissioned service. And therein lies the rub. Insistence upon an entry-level post-secondary education "can't hurt", right? Well, only if you accept the notion that such "prerequisites" preclude a substantial body of potential commissioned recruits. The minute you make PSE a recruitment and/or junior (eg. Capt to Major) promotion gate-way, you preclude (or unduly discourage) an untold number of otherwise suitable candidates for the commissioned profession of arms. Factor in the bilingualism requirement (even if you've never had a reason to use it in 17 years of service) and you have yet another "pointless hoop" for the prospective officer to leap through.
At the end of the day, If we can't state with certainty that PSE is a quantifiable "must-have qualifier" for entry-level comiissioned service, then we do ourselves an enormous potential disservice by making the BA/BSc a PREREQUISITE for commissioned service. Such operationallly irrelevant artificial gateways for entry-level service only serve to reduce our prospective recruiting base.
Rather then view the argument as one for or against a PSE, would it make more sense if the "for" position was arguing that some academic subjects, presented in a classroom setting, are just as vital to the training of young Officers as are tactics and techniques taught in the field in Gagetown? Look over the fields I presented in my original proposition and tell me if you think it would be advantageous to instill these in our young officers in a environment in which they are forced to think and evaluate the concepts and ideas as opposed to checking the box off as "passed".
The only reason the topic falls back upon a PSE is because making a military education a degreed program helps to define the level of training an officer is provided. I would like to think that their is more of a difference between a Warrant Officer and a Lieutenant then time-in and the rank slip on they wear.
PBI
While I remain unconvinced that in the Army we currently have "too many" officers (Based on what I see in LFWA and in our Bde, I think we actually have them ill-distributed, since there are a number of critical shortages), I am a believer in re-examining how we employ our WO class vice our officers.
Since you have more direct experience with this, I'll take in the ill-distributed point. Whether it is "too many" or "ill distributed", both problems (or a combination of these, which may be the most plausible) would point to organizational problems. That being said, any implementation of the ideas many of us have put forward here would require some sort of organizational reform within the CF.
These are difficult questions, that is why there is fierce debate on both sides. But it is best that we address them. One can't always blame our shortcomings on the easy problems (we need more privates), because if all our problems were that simple, wouldn't they have been figured out years ago?
Having worked in both an Area and a Bde HQ, and now being in a US-driven Div-level HQ, I think that we wrongly insist on too many staff positions being filled by Capts that could be ably done by various grades of WO. The US seems much better at this, both in the employment of their senior E-grades and their WO grades. As well, I see no reason that at least one platoon/troop in a subunit could not be commanded by a WO. De facto, they often are now. I believe that the Germans do this (I'll have to ask my boss...).
I agree fully. I see no need to fritter away the capabilities of a professionally trained Officer in positions like "Assistant Adjutant". As well, many of these positions that the Army insists on filling with Captains are probably better suited to the vocational excellence that a Warrant Officer has developed with 15-20 years of service.
Another obvious target is the Canadian insistence that a rotary-wing pilot be a commissioned officer, as opposed to other forces such as the US or UK who permit WOs or even Sgts to be RWAC pilots.
Yep, I agree there as well. There should be a split between those who simply want to fly, and those who want to commit themselves to the profession of Air Power or the Fleet. I have some ideas; I would like to hear from Zoomie, Inch, and Ex-Dragoon about what they feel on the necessity of a professional education for Air Force and Naval Officers. I am currently reading the biography of USAF Colonel John Boyd, so there should be some interesting points on the flyer side of that to draw from his life.
I also believe that a combination of service in the ranks with PSE (preferably in a civilian university but acceptable in a military setting if it does not degenerate into rote learning) will produce a solid, well-rounded officer corps.
I will agree with that statement except for the civilian university part. By doing so, we would risk the required elements of a military education not being instilled in Cadets. If we send them to a civilian university, they will learn about 18th Gay and Lesbian Literature and the Artwork of Phoenicia. This type of education is irrelevant to a military professional, and the "against" people would be correct in opposing it. It is the "degenerate into rote learning" that is the key.
The military schooling at the RMC that Cadets must receive should be among the best that Canada can provide. We must attempt to draw in the best instructors, both civilian and military, in order to ensure a first-rate military education. I remember a great quote (can't find it now) about the American Colonel that Marshall put in charge of Officer Development in the US. This Officer had managed to get on an exchange with the German Army and get his military education there in the early 1930's. His military education consisted of lectures by Oberth and Von Braun on the development of their rocket technology and physics, Guderian's and Liddell Hart's theories on warfare, and some preeminent German politicians, who had been at Versailles, lecturing about international relations. This opportunity, when provided in an academic setting that requires critical thought, will ensure that our officers will be true professionals.
Earl:
What say you if we had a just a Collage like Sandhurst were you pass or fail as an Officer as Sandhurst only teaches the Art of War in all repsects from logistics to the front line and all in between.
Sandhurst is a true War Collage should we have the same?
No RMC is not the same.
That is what I advocated. I said earlier that RMC was no different then a conventional civilian university with a bit of Cadet training.
I've advocated turning RMC into a facility capable of providing a full military education as I detailed earlier. It would be designed along the lines of the German
Kreigsacadamie, which turned out the some of the finest military professionals for over a century (and which Sandhurst was modelled on as well).
a larger formation (We all love to talk about how we are geared for mobilization). Just because the current mission creep of Small-Scale Contingenices has forced us to break up units and formations into tactical units for "plug and play" global contributions does not eliminate the possibility of a Major Regional Contingency (or worse, a Global Conflict) landing in our lap. By ensuring that our tactical commanders are trained and educated from the start to have a firm grasp on the operational art while our mid-level commanders are given the command and staff training to operate in formation level strategic planning and execution, we prepare our Officers to successfully fulfill their number one job, winning wars through the command of fighting soldiers, at any level required by the State. To ignore this is the adverse of a professional Officer Corps, it is amateurism with the only consequence being that we are forced to re-invent the wheel, while having to pay the butchers bill in the process of doing so. 
