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

[Bird_Gunner45]

I don't think the tax payer should be footing the bill for a degree as a part of Officer training. I don't think we need RMC either. Logical places to make cuts, IMO.

As for needing a degree...yes and no. I think some degrees are worthwhile, in some occupations.

I don't have a completed degree but I could hit the ground running today and be a competent officer with the proper training and mentoring.

I think that the tax payer should foot the bill for SOME degree programs, namely those specific ones in need, be it in the CF or in the civy world.  For the CF, my opinion is that a major factor in the offering of a degree is to attract persons to the CF who would otherwise go to university and into the civie world.  That said, there is a real requirement for professionals in the CF in engineering and medical trades, as well as a slew of other specialized trades.  Those pers should have their degrees paid for, since it benefits the CF, and larger society as a whole.  In civie world, Canada is currently extremely short in trades persons, while pumping out record levels of BA types.  Why not pay for trades training and lure people from the BA world to fill our needs?

In short- I agree with paying for degrees if it benefits the larger society.  If you want a philosophy degree or drama degree, than you're footing the bill.

I do like the idea of re-rolling RMC into a Sandhurst type of institution.  Would save on training time lost due to conflicting schedules (DEO vs RMC), and would allow for people to be exposed to different ideologies and social situations than  they do at RMC.

 

[Drag]

D3 - what "above the tactical level" interactions are you talking about? "Me-wall" competitions with the Civil Service?

How about writing a business case for the MND outlining why he should spend $50M in capital funding with accurately forecasting the 2nd and 3rd order effects... Ability "speak the same language" with the public service while representing DND...

 

[McG]

We already manage to put Captains on ATL for year-long courses required for various technical and project jobs, so the career framework to do ATL education already exists.

Most of the existing year long ATL paths for captains have the undergraduate degree as a prerequisit.  While the career framework exists to do ATL, I don't think we should set ourselves on a path that requires a universal ATL path at the rank of Capt.

 

[aesop081]

I don't think we should set ourselves on a path that requires a universal ATL path at the rank of Capt.

I never said it needed to be universal.

Take the Aerospace Systems Course (ASC) for example. It is not offered to all RCAF Captains. Those sent on the course go ATL for one year and have been designated to fill certain positions prior to attending the course. Those who are not intended for technical/project work do not attend the course. The course is now open to NCMs as well so the undergrad degree requirement is not that much of an issue there.

I would rather think that the personal attributes required of those jobs is acquired through the member's experience, enhanced by the training to a much more feective level than that of university and a degree in basket-weaving.

 

[McG]

I never said it needed to be universal.

Then you are not answering the question of where would we fit the education requirements if the undergraduate degree were removed from the front end of an officers career.  The current ATL paths (such as ASC or LFTSP) do not address that - rather, they expect that educational requirement has already been met.  So, if the if the undergraduate degree is removed from the front end of an officers career, where do you fit that education into the career path?

We probably don't need the current four year honours type programme, but we need something and that something is far less expensive if it is done prior to enrollment or at the OCdt level.

 

[aesop081]

rather, they expect that educational requirement has already been met.

Since the RCAF has seen fit to open the ASC to its NCMs, i would think it is fair to say that it has been accepted that the requirements can be met through the member's experience.

that something is far less expensive if it is done prior to enrollment or at the OCdt level.

It would be even far less expensive if it was directed at the people who need it rather than towards everyone "just in case".

If one's MOS requires a specific degree type ( engineers for example) to do their jobs at the entry-level, then by all means, send them to RMC on the front-end. Other MOS who do not have specific degree requirements for one to do his initial jobs ca, IMHO, live with more specific, targeted training/education later on.

 

[Drag]

Then you are not answering the question of where would we fit the education requirements if the undergraduate degree were removed from the front end of an officers career.  The current ATL paths (such as ASC or LFTSP) do not address that - rather, they expect that educational requirement has already been met.  So, if the if the undergraduate degree is removed from the front end of an officers career, where do you fit that education into the career path?

We probably don't need the current four year honours type programme, but we need something and that something is far less expensive if it is done prior to enrollment or at the OCdt level.

+1 Unless we start recruiting 18-19 year olds  as officers pushing the training back later in the mbr's career would serve to cut 3-4 years of "usefullness" the organization can get out of the mbr.

 

[aesop081]

+1 Unless we start recruiting 18-19 year olds  as officers

We once did.

 

[McG]

Since the RCAF has seen fit to open the ASC to its NCMs, i would think it is fair to say that it has been accepted that the requirements can be met through the member's experience.

The Army has done the same with the LFTSP - WO & MWO follow the same thing as ATWO, but the expectations and standards are different.  The jobs after are also different.  I would not suggest this demonstrates a jr officer will have met career educational requirements simply through experience.

It would be even far less expensive if it was directed at the people ho need it rather than towards everyone "just in case".

I know a major who observed that what he pays in annual income tax could hire an OCdt for a year.  I would not assume it is cheaper to send sr officers for just-in-time education.  But, if we want to assume it is cheaper, where do you put it in the career stream?  Do you propose JCSP be extended to include an undergraduate master's degree akin to the UK model?

... Unless we start recruiting 18-19 year olds as officers

We once did.

Are you suggesting we should do this again?

 

[aesop081]

  Do you propose JCSP be extended to include an undergraduate master's degree akin to the UK model?

I am neither familiar enough with JCSP or the UK model to make a determination. It does, however, sound worth exploring.

Are you suggesting we should do this again?

Why not ? Was there something inherently wrong with OCTP that i am missing ?

Hell, look at the Pilot MOS. Its takes long enough as it is to train one to OFP, imagine if we shaved off 4 years of university as we once did with OCTP.

 

[vonGarvin]

I disagree, the Inf O with an English degree still has much more developed analytical/critical thinking skills then without the degree, having been a PD, that is one of the most aspects of the job. 

Get a philosophy degree, and then talk to me about ciricial thinking.  A language degree is about interpreting poems.  So, intepret this:


Go fuck yourself.


Amen



(me: BA (Hons) [insert language here]/philosophy)

 

[Drag]

I know a major who observed that what he pays in annual income tax could hire an OCdt for a year. ?

As a first year ROTP OCdt, my salary was just over one fifth of what it is now as a Capt IPC 3.  For a year of salary at my current pay level the CF can get over 3 years of salary+tuition+ books at an accredited civilian institutions.  As well, there would be significant additional costs to establish and manage any "just in time" training.

Now considering that most officers in the CF does eventually get posted out of a tactical billet and would need some sort of ATL type training, the current way of doing things is one of the more economical.

 

[aesop081]

Go frig yourself.


Amen

It does not rhyme. You would know that if you had an English degree.

 

[vonGarvin]

It does not rhyme. You would know that if you had an English degree.

True


But, of course, I have a degree in German, so not only do I lack rhyming, but also a sense of NOT invading Poland...

 

[dapaterson]

How about writing a business case for the MND outlining why he should spend $50M in capital funding with accurately forecasting the 2nd and 3rd order effects... Ability "speak the same language" with the public service while representing DND...

Hmm... MND doesn't read those documents, you know.  His staff review and synthesize and make recommendations; some MNDs read only the first para of the BN that summarizes the executive summary.  And within DND, $50M isn't that impressive - that may well be within the non-strat allocation of an ECS.

You're not providing a compelling case for a degreed officer corps.  Capital submissions, whether to the MND or to TB, are not an argument.  Indeed, much of that work should be done by civilians; that the Sig and Log branches are primarily in the NCR suggests a lack of operational focus on their part, and an excessive desire to fight bureaucratic battles that are, frankly, as waste of the finite number of full-time military personnel permitted to the CF.  A cull of the Log and Sigs branches in the NCR is long, long overdue, as many of the positions they fill would be more appropriately and more economically filled by public servants.

Is there a need for officers who can think?  Yes.  Is a degreed officer corps the only way to get it?  No.  Are there other models (ie short service engagements of 7-9 years, followed by release, with folks topping out at Capt) that may work as well?  Yes.

Is there a risk of intellectual monoculture when we push our ROTP through a single small, provincial and parochial school in Kingston?  Yes.  Is there value in having our officers get a degree mill Masters from the CF College in Toronto?  No.  Instead, we should send some (fewer than we do now) out to other schools to broaden horizons and social networks.

The current model is flawed; the institutional hunkering down to protect the current structure is unseemly; and the cost is not worth the end product.  In my opinion.

 

[cavalryman]

True


But, of course, I have a degree in German, so not only do I lack rhyming ;D, but also a sense of NOT invading Poland...

Dann hast du nicht aufgepasst.  Polnischer Einzug 101 ist die Basis.  Dann kommt Pariser Einzug 201.
;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Dann hast du nicht aufgepasst.  Polnischer Einzug 101 ist die Basis.  Dann kommt Pariser Einzug 201.
;D

Jetzt darf ich durch gehen?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As a first year ROTP OCdt, my salary was just over one fifth of what it is now as a Capt IPC 3.  For a year of salary at my current pay level the CF can get over 3 years of salary+tuition+ books at an accredited civilian institutions.  As well, there would be significant additional costs to establish and manage any "just in time" training.

Now considering that most officers in the CF does eventually get posted out of a tactical billet and would need some sort of ATL type training, the current way of doing things is one of the more economical.

You still seriously contend that in order to be a critical thinker and\ or posit a business plan to the CDS, or such, requires a degree?

That, to me anyway, shows you didn't learn much in your four years. Not much of consequence anyway. Certainly not enough to put you anywhere above many of the WOs & Snr NCOs I have known throughout my long career.

I'll reiterate. Your arse is a star. The only thing you have seemed to have learned is pompasity and an outward disdain or scorn for anyone that hasn't wasted four years of their life in one of your sanctified halls of learning where a degree is a degree is a degree. No matter which one it is.

 

[mba2011]

I am currently a ROTP OCdt at a civilian university. IN MY OPINION, there are pros and cons to the program (both RMC/CMR and Civi U).

The pros include giving us experiences from both sides of things, the military and the civilian. We receive  our training during the summers and also OJE during the summer between university and the course we are taking in the summer. This gives us some practical military experience in addition to the training we do in the summer. When we are at school, we are still bound by The NDA/QR&O/CSD and all other regulations/orders. We are RegForce military members who's job it is to go to school. That said, at university, we still get similar life experiences as other students in regards to social interactions, disputes with professors etc. These experiences gives us different "life Lessons" but also gives us experiences with the military at the same time.

One of the cons is the cost of the program. The CF pays our tuition, books and other mandatory fees. As well, salary and all the CF benefits. However, the program enables the CF to cultivate skilled officers and acquire individuals who have a variety of different skills, degrees and experiences that help enhance the CF (not to say that others don't enhance the CF, many do more so than ROTP OCdts, but we do have some value to the CF).

The point I am getting at is that whilst it is an expensive program, it gives the CF officers who are different then DEO officers. When we are commissioned and posted, we have had 2-4 years in the Forces, maybe not in our eventual roles in our trades but in the administrative system, several months of OJE and the valuable lesson of having to abide by all the CF Laws in the civilian world. Even though getting rid of the program would save the CF money, replacing it with a "finishing School" for officers (as suggested earlier in the thread) wouldn't necessarily be as effective. ROTP is expensive but in the long run it gives the CF a different kind of officer then DEO which does help to enhance CF as a whole.

On another note, a degree doesn't guarantee you skills like critical thinking. There are classmates of mine who I wouldn't trust to manage a lemonade stand let alone an infantry platoon or MP section. That said, requiring officers to have degrees is not a bad thing. It would make sense for those Senior NCO's being commissioned from the ranks to have this requirement waved but required DEO's to have one. 

Feel free to disagree, it is just my opinion.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Get a philosophy degree, and then talk to me about ciricial thinking.  A language degree is about interpreting poems.  So, intepret this:

Go fuck yourself.

Amen
(me: BA (Hons) [insert language here]/philosophy)

CONSIDER THIS A FREEBEE.
Treading on thin ice my friend.
Bruce
army.ca Staff

and Grade 9 dropout doing alright.