So You Want to be an officer, eh!

[George Wallace]

Here is the kicker for me, despite what I said above, despite applying as a DEO myself, I am more of the persuasion that Officers should come from the ranks, at least as far as the combat arms are concerned.  If anyone with a degree should get an advantage when becoming an Officer, it should be the NCM with a degree.  For those applying straight to the Officer Corps without prior military experience, I would think having to do a couple years as an NCM would be an excellent idea.  I think that would be a fair compromise between those wanting to join to Regular Officer Corps from university and NCMs wanting to become Officers.     

Park

This is not a black and white proposal.  There are many shades of gray.  I don't propose that a NCM with a Degree be an excellent candidate.  Often they may not be.  I have known Cpls who would never have passed their CLC/JLC/PLQ and then decided that the officer route was the route for them.  They made poor officers.  I would like to see NCOs who have successfully passed a Leadership Crse (PLQ, 6A, 6B, or 7 Crse) offered the opportunity to change their career path.  The offer would not be to all who passed, but those who showed the most potential. 

The jury is out on the topic of leadership for me.  Very few educations prepare you to be a leader. Knowing how something works in theory doesn't really prepare you for practical application.  Experience as a subordinate does not translate into leadership ability either.  Some of the worst managers are ones promoted from the ranks.  Just because you are good at your job, doesn't mean you will be able to lead people in doing that job.

That is where the CF Battle Schools and Leadership Schools come in.  The CF teaches "leadership" in steps.  The young NCO and young officer start with PLQ and Phase Trg respectively.  They then progress onto 6A, 6B, and 7s Crses, ILQ, Staff Schools, Staff Colleges, etc.  Leadership isn't taught as "an all in one wonder course".  It is taught in several progressive courses, and of course through a lot of practical experience and mentoring.

 

[bdave]

bdave, I hear you and I can see that you are an enthusiastic student, you are proud of your work, education and you would like to contribute to CF and that is great.

;D

My English is not great, so not easy to being clear for me. I might have misunderstood you, but I just warn you that you should not cut the world in two, with on one side the Engineers, Doctors in sciences (PhD) or health care (MD,..) and the others. Many people have a lot of responsibilities, and as an engineer, your boss might even not be one of yours, but will carry on his shoulder your responsibility and his own. You'll find that for example the electrician or any technician below you might have also huge responsibility, and also have to work with finance, administration and so on if he has his own company.

If all the buildings stay in place, it is not only due to engineer but all the team behind, from the carpenter to the architect and so on.

Don't cut the world in two, because again by doing so you might piss off some of your subalterns that from your book are not "intelligent" and are out of their lane outside as soon as they give you suggestion if it is what your were suggesting by your post, but I might have misinterpret it.

In conclusion, I respect all professions, they have all their own challenges and we need all of them, what I don't like is the incompetent that hide behind his degree and claim that is never his fault and is in the know, that I can't stand it and I witness this situation many times a year. Having a degree assess that you are qualify in this field, period and they is manyways to be a successful incompetent professional, and they are not an exception, not an anecdote.

However, keep your enthusiasm, and I wish you the best in your career, and hope that you'll get in the trade of your choice in the CF, after all it is who you are and not necessary what you know that is going to make you a great leader. What you know or don't that is workable, who you are that is more difficult to change.

Regards,

I know all that and i understand what you are saying.
I just said what i said because i got the impression that certain posters were riding the "degrees are useless" bandwagon too hard. I felt as though i had to "take the other side".

A degree is a piece of paper saying you've achieved something. Does it mean you'll make a great officer or leader? No, absolutely not.
What I'm saying is: To the CF, having a university degree gives them an indication that you are able to set goals and accomplish them.
It gives no guarantee but it does give them something to work with
If it was up to me, I would keep the fact that you can begin as an officer if you have a degree AND allow certain NCO to become officers when they have done the time and shown the proper skills.
I think that would be best of both worlds.

 

[George Wallace]

;D

So with all the debate, we can see that there are many challenges ahead of someone who wants to become an officer candidate.  It is a very serious step to take in one's life; not a casual or whimsical fling.

 

[Loachman]

George Wallace makes mention of knowing a lot of twits with degrees.

I think that that was me.

However, I bet

How much?

an educated idiot was an idiot before being educated,

Of course. While an education will not make him less of an idiot, it won't make him more of one, either.

Maybe more dangerous, but that's another different thing.

there is a good chance that he was less of an idiot after being educated.

No, there is a much better chance (as close to 100% as one could get) that he would only be an idiot that knew a little more.

Someone who is naturally intelligent will probably be even more intelligent after being educated.

No, they will be just as intelligent as they were before, but they will know more.

Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing, as has been pointed out.

Intelligence can be measured, to a certain degree at least. That is what an IQ score is for. IQ does not change with education.

Hamiltongs said it best when he said that you cannot compare the intelligence of a formally educated person to one that isn't (sorry I am paraphrasing here).

Certainly you can. That is what IQ tests are designed to do.

Aptitude tests, such as the CFAT, are designed to assess aptitude, not trained skill or induced knowledge.

Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?

You can only compare the intelligence of an individual before and after being educated.

That would be a complete waste of time, because the difference would be zero. That individual's processor and memory have not been altered. He/she has only had a few programmes and files uploaded. His/her IQ remains unchanged, only their knowledge has been improved. Give the same exam - a test of knowledge - to an uneducated man and one educated in whatever subjects were covered in that education, and a difference will obviously be noticed.

Arguing the intelligence of a university grad compared to a high school grad is a moot point.

Of course it is, because comparing education and intelligence is

comparing apples to oranges.

I shall not be asking you to purchase fruit on my behalf.

There has been a lot of contention of what 'intelligence' really means.  That being educated is not intelligence.  Which is true,

But that is not what you have been saying. If one can add education to intelligence (or idiocy) and get increased intelligence (or reduced idiocy), as you have in effect said, then they must be the same, nein?

but education has an affect on intelligence.

No, it doesn't. It only affects knowledge and, depending upon the nature of the education, skill. Neither of those are "intelligence".

One is an inherent characteristic, or design and manufacturing characteristic in the case of a computer, and the other is the knowledge and skill, or files and programmes.

If anyone here thinks that they would be just as intelligent as they are now without the benefit of being taught by parents as a child, or without an elementary or high school education, please say so now.

I believe that I have said that already, in this post and my previous one, several times, but I am perfectly willing to say it again.

An intelligent person will absorb information and learn skills with or without formal education/training. Obviously, they will do so through trial and error and observing others and reading books on their own initiative, but they will do it. And they will do so better than a stupid person no matter how long that stupid person sits in a classroom.

Here is the kicker for me, despite what I said above, despite applying as a DEO myself, I am more of the persuasion that Officers should come from the ranks, at least as far as the combat arms are concerned.  If anyone with a degree should get an advantage when becoming an Officer, it should be the NCM with a degree.  For those applying straight to the Officer Corps without prior military experience, I would think having to do a couple years as an NCM would be an excellent idea.  I think that would be a fair compromise between those wanting to join to Regular Officer Corps from university and NCMs wanting to become Officers.

That was said, of course, with no military experience whatsoever, at any rank level.

Some of the best officers that I've known have spent time in the ranks. Some of the best officers that I have known have spent absolutely no time in the ranks. Spending time in the ranks does not necessarily make any particular person any better at doing a somewhat similar yet different job at a higher level. It should give that person a much better understanding of their subordinates' lives, but a few even manage to forget that with varying degrees of instantaneity. There is no need or benefit to institutionalize that.

The jury is out on the topic of leadership for me.  Very few educations prepare you to be a leader. Knowing how something works in theory doesn't really prepare you for practical application.  Experience as a subordinate does not translate into leadership ability either.  Some of the worst managers are ones promoted from the ranks.  Just because you are good at your job, doesn't mean you will be able to lead people in doing that job.

You just shot your earlier all-officers-from-the-ranks argument full of holes.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?

Agree 100%.

That would be a complete waste of time, because the difference would be zero. That individual's processor and memory have not been altered. He/she has only had a few programmes and files uploaded. His/her IQ remains unchanged, only their knowledge has been improved. Give the same exam - a test of knowledge - to an uneducated man and one educated in whatever subjects were covered in that education, and a difference will obviously be noticed.

This is where I do not totally agree.  Depending on the individual, education will enable a person to develop techniques to improve the speed at which problem solving is performed as well as increase his memory (short, medium and long term).

 

[Loachman]

Depending on the individual, education will enable a person to develop techniques to improve the speed at which problem solving is performed.

"Developing techniques" is a software/knowledge/skill upgrade, not a hardware/intelligence upgrade.

as well as increase his memory (short, medium and long term).

I am unsure that actual memory is increased, as opposed to learning to better use what one has, which would also be a software upgrade. I lack education in that area (but that makes me no less intelligent than somebody who has an education in that area, just as my flying training/education makes me no more intelligent than somebody who cannot fly - we just have different programmes).

I know that Moose Jaw, to use something common to you and me, altered my memory. I found that numbers, no matter how relevant or long, stuck in my head, yet I had difficulty remembering what I had done the day before. My guess is that overall capacity had not altered, only how it was being used. I was somewhat relieved when I began to realize, some time later (can't remember exactly when), my memory began to revert to "normal".

Regardless, my analogy, like most, is not 100% perfect - it's the closest illustration that I could paint, however.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Formal educational qualifications are critical for leaders. After all, look at this guy  :

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=harvard&emb=0#

 

[bdave]

A quick question since i am curious.
We have established (or rather you folks told me  ) that intelligence and education/knowledge are not necessarily one and the same.
My question to you would be: How does one increase intelligence?

I will do some pre-emptive striking here:

-If one cannot increase intelligence, then the point is moot and doesn't need to be brought up.
-If intelligence comes with experience, then that is something that no one can have initially. While you might be a great leader, it does not mean you would be a great officer. The skill set is different (i would assume). To be a great/good officer, you'd have to first start off as an officer and with time you'd improve. We have established that a great NCO does not necessarily a great officer make.
I would argue that experience doesn't bring intelligence, but knowledge. Knowing what to do from experience = knowledge, not intelligence.

I honestly believe that intelligence can be increased to some degree with knowledge.

Anxiously awaiting the replies (knowledgeable or intelligent?).

edit: Bill Gates, the exception...not the rule.

 

[Antoine]

I am out of my lane about the present thread so I might digress a bit from the original subject and I apologize, but I would like to add my  :2c: from my own "long" experience about university.

if someone use at his/her advantage the tools given by the education system, this student is already intelligent, he/she will probably be successful and be a leader in several environments other than academia.
It is possible that for various environmental/personal/social reasons, a student wasn't aware of his/her potential, and/or wasn't put in an environment forcing him/her to use his neuronal connections and thus didn't seem to have much intellectual skills before starting university. He/she appears to start the year at the bottom but when the "neuronal engine" start, then you can witness it taking over pretty fast.

Other students start the year with a lot of knowledge learn by heart but are totally lost in the university environment, they can't think outside the box and can't adapt or use the tools offer by the academia (the institution and prof could be blamed to some extend also, I have failed sometime to push a student to develop those skills).

Other (include me) are average but are hardworkers. It makes success possible but more painfull to reach  , if you don't learn to be realistic about your goal.

Knowledge is easier to evaluate than intelligence. Thus, often the exams are not about thinking outside the box but more about how much knowledge can you process and write down in a small amount of time. Yes it creates an environment that improves your speed for problem solving (if you don't use the by heart system), memory, organizational skills but for me it could be learn from outside academia in a competitive environment. On another hand, you can graduate from university without a significant amelioration in critical thinking, teamwork skills, analytical skills outside your specialisation, development of tools and use of acquired knowledge to adapt to new situations, common sense ...

From my own experience I don't think that holding an university degree is a guarantee for a candidate to fit the requirements listed previously in the present thread, and hopfully the selection process, the BMOQ and the following trainings will sort that out sooner than later.

Maybe it is possible to use knowledge and life experience to improve intelligence, but I am still looking for a convincing and complete definition of intelligence (Wikipedia and related) despite I am using this word all over my posts!

 

[George Wallace]

...........To be a great/good officer, you'd have to first start off as an officer and with time you'd improve. We have established that a great NCO does not necessarily a great officer make.

I disagree that to become a great/good officer, you have to first start off as an officer.  Throughout our military history there have been many who have started out as NCOs and moved on to become very senior officers, and great ones at that.

We have also established that some, perhaps many, depending on how you look at them, have started out as officers and been complete disasters as such.  There is no monopoly on either extreme (good or bad).

 

[Jammer]

One Gen Jean (John...or whatever) Boyle springs to mind as an example of what not to be.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I disagree that to become a great/good officer, you have to first start off as an officer.

I think what he meant was that "to become a great/good officer, you first have to be commissioned."

Without that first step it doesn't matter how good an officer you may have been in your own mind, since for many participants in this thread the concept of being a great/good officer is merely a thought experiment.

 

[McG]

We have established (or rather you folks told me  ) that intelligence and education/knowledge are not necessarily one and the same.
My question to you would be: How does one increase intelligence?

Yes.  Knowledge is not intelligence, but intelligence does exploit knowledge in order to make better decisions.  I think we can all agree that knowledge and skill can be improved through relevant training, education and experience.

Intelligence is your ability to think effectively and logically.  If we really have to use the computer analogy, then it is your hardware + your operating system (your brain + how you use it). 

Intelligence can be improved.  Like skills & knowledge, it is improved through training and experience.  Good education includeds "training" for the brain.  A proper education exposes the student to conflicting arguments & evidence, and then forces the student to discern what is right/wrong, true/false, or the closest thing to.  Surprisingly, I find that it is the Arts, not the sciences, which seem to do a better job of developing critical thinking skills.

In another thread, I made the following comments on this idea:

... a degree in ... liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.

Sea king Taco....  please enlighten me as to how a liberal arts, or any other degree, is necessary  to flying?

I can't speak for the piloting side, but the demonstrated ability to think critically does have a significant value for being an officer.  It is true that having a degree is not proof of intelligence, and the absence of a degree is not even suggestive of an intellectual deficiency.  However, in general, a degree indicates some formal effort has been made toward the betterment of an individual's critical thinking capability.  This first step is of great value, and it is built-upon thought an officer's career.

 

[Journeyman]

I know that Moose Jaw, .....something....altered my memory......I had difficulty remembering what I had done the day before.

That happens in Moose Jaw too, eh?  :cheers:



...I now return you to your substantive discussion  ;D

 

[Park]

Intelligence can be measured, to a certain degree at least. That is what an IQ score is for. IQ does not change with education.

In fact, it does. Significantly.  Environment and knowledge (of which education and experiences are subsets of) affect intelligence. It has been proven that certain types of training have been known to affect improve one's IQ.

I am going to have to agree with MCG. An education is more than the acquisition of facts.  Education (even if it's from the school of hard knocks) will teach you how to use what you've got between your ears more effectively.

Computers can be compared on the basis of their processor speeds and memory. That's the machine equivalent of intelligence. The programmes installed, and information stored, on the computer is the machine equivalent of education. See the difference?

You seem to think that IQ is determined by sheer genetics.  In that context, your arguments would be correct. But this is simply not true.  You will be hard pressed to find much (if any) current researcher that states that intelligence is 100% determined by genetics.
People aren't computers. We are not strictly defined by our specifications. We can't upgrade ourselves by swapping components, computers can't 'exercise' a computer to make it more powerful. When we exercise our minds and bodies, they become stronger. 

An intelligent person will absorb information and learn skills with or without formal education/training. Obviously, they will do so through trial and error and observing others and reading books on their own initiative, but they will do it. And they will do so better than a stupid person no matter how long that stupid person sits in a classroom.

No argument there.

It should give that person a much better understanding of their subordinates' lives, but a few even manage to forget that with varying degrees of instantaneity. There is no need or benefit to institutionalize that.

You just shot your earlier all-officers-from-the-ranks argument full of holes.

Its not I think all NCMs would make great Officers, but I think having hands-on NCM experience would be of enormous benefit for would-be Officers.  Its not for the leadership qualities they would have acquired, but for the increased understanding they will have.  And there might be merit in institutionalizing it.  Large corporations often have rotational programs for MBA grads, where they spend 12 to 24 months in various functions to get experience in non-managerial areas before becoming a manager.  Heck, in Air Canada's management programme they put you right on the tarmac handling baggage (probably not the best corporate example)

[quote author=George Wallace]This is not a black and white proposal.  There are many shades of gray.  I don't propose that a NCM with a Degree be an excellent candidate.  Often they may not be.  I have known Cpls who would never have passed their CLC/JLC/PLQ and then decided that the officer route was the route for them.  They made poor officers.  I would like to see NCOs who have successfully passed a Leadership Crse (PLQ, 6A, 6B, or 7 Crse) offered the opportunity to change their career path.  The offer would not be to all who passed, but those who showed the most potential. 
[/quote]
I agree, potential is very important.  My remark of officers coming from the ranks is more of a sentiment than an argument. As a person, I just have an admiration for those who busted their chops to get where they are.  Not to say that those who went through university didn't, but its not the same to me.

[quote author=George Wallace]
There are many shades of gray.   
[/quote]
Amen...way too many

 

[gcclarke]

In fact, it does. Significantly.  Environment and knowledge (of which education and experiences are subsets of) affect intelligence. It has been proven that certain types of training have been known to affect improve one's IQ.

I am going to have to agree with MCG. An education is more than the acquisition of facts.  Education (even if it's from the school of hard knocks) will teach you how to use what you've got between your ears more effectively.
You seem to think that IQ is determined by sheer genetics.  In that context, your arguments would be correct. But this is simply not true.  You will be hard pressed to find much (if any) current researcher that states that intelligence is 100% determined by genetics.

The problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that IQ equates 100% with intelligence. But it isn't. A standard IQ test is one of the methods that we use to try and measure intelligence, but they are not one and the same. And while certain training may increase a person's IQ testing scores, it doesn't make the person any smarter. Someone who takes a course entitled "How to do well on an IQ test" is very likely to be rated as "smarter" than the same person in an alternate universe who did not take said test.

I will agree that it isn't 100% genetics, certainly environmental factors such as nutrition and parenting growing up affect things. But by the time someone reaches adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at its maximum.

And that's what intelligence is. It isn't what you know how to do, it's how capable you are of learning to do something. Education helps, because it typically A) Proves that you're at least smart enough to learn how to do something, and B) Hopefully also teaches you something that might be useful on later in life.

And of course, the idea of using an IQ number to assess how intelligent someone is is flawed in other ways. Two people may have the same IQ, when one of them is good at math and science, and the other is good at english and sculpture. Is any one of them smarter? Maybe, but their capabilities really need to be assessed with a bias towards how they want to use them. This would be why the CF uses the CFAT instead of a standard IQ test. Because some of the factors that a standard IQ test might be assessing, aren't something that the CF cares about, and some factors that the CF does care about might not be tested by the standard IQ test.

 

[mariomike]

You seem to think that IQ is determined by sheer genetics. 

Reminds me of the story where Marilyn Monroe suggests to Einstein: What do you say, professor, shouldn't we marry and have a little baby together: what a baby it would be - my looks and your intelligence!
Einstein: I'm afraid, dear lady, it might be the other way around...

 

[McG]

I will agree that it isn't 100% genetics, certainly environmental factors such as nutrition and parenting growing up affect things. But by the time someone reaches adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at its maximum.

It's a good thing we train all our medical doctors when they are still children then. :clown:

I call BS.  You've made a baseless assumption & expect us to just accept it as fact.

 

[Quag]

It's a good thing we train all our medical doctors when they are still children then. :clown:

I call BS.  You've made a baseless assumption & expect us to just accept it as fact.

MCG,

Ummmm....I hope your post was a joke, right?!?!

If not then I'm sorry to inform you, but Gcclarke is right.  Genetics, nutrition (breast feeding etc...), parenting, and environment all play huge factors, to name a few.

Edited to Add...I read a little further in Gcclarke's post and realized that his last sentence was completely wrong.  Adult learning is indeed alive and well.  No more comment required there.  Further, Gcclarke seems to have lifted most of his last post from Wikipedia (search intelligence). 

 

[gcclarke]

It's a good thing we train all our medical doctors when they are still children then. :clown:

I call BS.  You've made a baseless assumption & expect us to just accept it as fact.

MCG,
Edited to Add...I read a little further in Gcclarke's post and realized that his last sentence was completely wrong.  Adult learning is indeed alive and well.  No more comment required there.  Further, Gcclarke seems to have lifted most of his last post from Wikipedia (search intelligence). 

I don't really see where in my post I indicated that learning as an adult is impossible. I certainly stated that one's capacity to learn doesn't increase much past adulthood. People don't get better at learning than they were. But they certainly still retain their capabilities to learn for pretty much their entire lives, until old age starts messing with things.

But there mere fact that someone is still able to continue learning how to do something doesn't mean that someone's capacity of learning increases. They're just using the current capacity they've got. No we don't train doctors when they are children, Neil Patrick Harris notwithstanding, because to become a doctor requires an immense amount of knowledge and training to work off of. But the mere fact that someone is able to become a medical doctor past adulthood, doesn't mean that they become smarter in the process. It just means that they know more about a certain subject. They have learned, not gotten better at learning.

I will admit that I did indeed make certain assumptions in my post, mostly based upon what I remember reading about studies on people's capability to learn languages, and how that drops off after a certain age. Although I didn't steal it from the wiki page, although I'll have to go there and edit any sections that disagree with my post