• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Higher Education in a Military Career

"The fact that we have undoubtedly produced incompetent officers who have degrees is IMHO merely a correlation, rather than cause and effect. I would be much more inclined to lay the blame on a system that fail to weed out weak characters, incompetents and otherwise generally unsuited types, or that automatically bestows HM commission on someone just because they have a degree. There, in my view, lie the real problems."

- The above is much more in line with what I SHOULD have written, rather than shooting from the hip with "degrees wrapped in CAD PAT".  Refusing to release people merely because "we have to much money invested in them" - whether officer or OR - is merely throwing good money after bad.  It is bad MHR policy, but that does not mean that the policy of giving officers a university degree is bad MHR policy.

So, I stand corrected.

Tom
 
An theres the rub!

    Is being a good officer leader about education or about the innate ability of leadership?

Begs the real question that will answer the education one "are officers born or made"

  Although I agree at the higher levels the ability to argue a point or develop a plan along side your PhD US buddy in a coalition HQ is important, is it really important in the big bayonet picture. Education never made a mediocre leader great but it will make him competent in a staff position and great leadership is not about staff positions. Great leaders emerge in the crucible of fire (battle) it is just in them not in there education.
 
I hesitate to go here, because this subject was well and truly thrashed out on these pages quite a while back, but I have to say that there is no truth to the idea that it is an "either/or" situation when it comes to the issue of higher education for officers. I do not see why we can't have good leaders who are well educated, or well educated officers who are good leaders. Where is the automatic exclusion?

I agree fully that training alone will not make a good leader: I subscribe (dinosaur-like) to the "trait" school of leadership theory in the sense that I believe some people's character and personalities make them utterly unsuited to be good leaders. We all know of these people, and we all know that unfortunately they can in fact progress in a military system, and progress quite far. Quite often their troops kill them, or at least daydream about it.

However, I do not see how being more broadly and fully educated automatically creates a problem for leadership quality, such that we have to start talking about balancing one off against the other.

The way I see it is that as an officer progresses in his career, the demands on him change. While he is always expected to be a leader, the type of leadership he provides to a platoon or company is not the same type he provides in a battalion, in command of a formation, or on a staff. (and, believe me, there is a very big requirement for leadership in a staff, especially an operational staff).

Do you need a degree to be effective in those jobs? Maybe not. I was A/G3  LFCA for a while and did a few ops, before I completed my degree. Was I a worse G3 because I didn't have a degree? Peha not. But, having walked the path, I feel much better having the education in political studies that I have now.

I go back to a point I made earlier: if we have bad officers with degrees, IMHO it is not because they have degrees. It is because, for whatever reason, they are bad officers and perhaps are not even suited to be leaders at all. This is a military system problem, not a higher education problem. IMHO what we need to do is give all of our officers (and indeed as many WOS/NCs as makes sense, too) better education, whether military or civil. At the same time, we need to set and demand high standards of leadership peformance, and place much more emphasis on character (or signs of its lack). Over time I think that the "education vs leadership" thing would then fade away.

Cheers.
 
I agree with all you say, and yes it would be a slippery slope to go down the born/made issue all those made guys battling the born ones what fun.....

  I guess my point is I agree but fear the education criteria becomes the measure not the ad on to a leader. If we select only grads to be our leaders we are selecting from a smaller pool of people and thus will have less to chose from. I as a political science guy feel its important but not the critical issue that it is turning into. I can comment on an officer who lead me as an OCTP he was the best of the best. At LCol he was told get a degree or it ends, he went off and the right thing is he better for it...yes for civiy street is he a better leader NO.

  I would suggest best system is recruit your leaders as officers (thats the born ones) if they have degrees great if not who cares, later at the 9 year mark give them a  year off to get the degree after they sign on the IE then the IPS give them another year off to do the masters thing. If they already have a degree than good only one year off at IE point fr masters and at the IPS they 2 for the PhD. Good incentive for the IE, IPS

 
I would suggest best system is recruit your leaders as officers (thats the born ones) if they have degrees great if not who cares, later at the 9 year mark give them a  year off to get the degree after they sign on the IE then the IPS give them another year off to do the masters thing. If they already have a degree than good only one year off at IE point fr masters and at the IPS they 2 for the PhD. Good incentive for the IE, IPS

OK-I'm with you here. While the details are slightly different, this is more or less how I got my degree.

Cheers
 
What about that?

http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/11/23/pf-1318739.html said:
Masters of freeloading

By PETER WORTHINGTON
The Toronto Sun, November 23 2005

A financial and policy scandal beckon in the military's Post-Graduate (PG) Training Program for officers.

If that sounds a bit harsh, consider: For at least a dozen years, DND has been sending select captains, majors and colonels for PG training to universities in Canada, the U.S. and Britain on full pay, all expenses paid for the officers and their families, as well as tuition, text books, travel, housing -- the whole nine yards.

Recently, I wrote about the program as it applies to the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) department, where 13 lawyers over the past seven years have gone on courses to get Master of Law degrees, which they'll never need as military lawyers.

This estimated JAG cost is $10 million a year, for which the individuals may benefit, but the military gains little.

But it's worse than that. Access to Information Legislation reveals that, last year, 73 navy, army and air force officers went on PG courses. This year, another 68 are off getting master's degrees in such things as business administration and various forms of electrical, nuclear, computer, marine, environmental, applied science and software engineering.

In these days of budget restrictions and vital need for upgraded and new equipment for the reduced numbers in the armed forces, it seems an unwarranted luxury to have so many officers off on such training on full salaries. Fill-in officers must cover for officers on PG training, which means an extra salary gnawing at the budget.

A naval lieutenant (C.J. Cole) received a doctorate in chemical engineering while an army Major (B.J. Brister) earned a PhD in economics.

Why all this higher learning for officers when we don't have enough boots on the ground to comfortably do whatever is required?

For example, this year eight officers are getting master's degrees in business administration. Last year, seven got masters in business administration.

What in hell is a Master of Distance Learning? Or a Master in Concentration Counselling? Master of Ocean Sciences? PhD in Psychology, Master of ergonomics? Master of Aerospace Vehicle Design?

Officers on a year's PG training must agree to serve at least two years before resigning their commissions or retiring to put their advanced qualifications to work in the private sector.

Retired Col. Michel Drapeau, now a lawyer with the Ottawa legal firm of Barrick Poulsen, notes that the PG program is not a one-time investment of money and people. It goes on every year. He asks: "How many officers do we need with MBA, LLD or M.Sc after their names?"

He adds: "No civilian firm or law firm could afford such prolonged absence from work at employer's expense for post-graduate training.

"Why can't these officers attend night or summer schools if they seek higher education?"

Drapeau says: "Think of the poor student who has to borrow, go into debt and live on the cheap to get an education. It's a good thing he or she doesn't know the fellow sharing classes is on an all-expense paid scheme and on full salary."

The PG program likely costs upwards of $20 million a year that could better be spent on troops on missions in dangerous parts of the world.

It's hard not to see the program as an abuse of funds and responsibilities. Officers, by any standard, are well paid and compensated with a variety of allowances.

Drapeau, who has worked at the core of DND headquarters' planning, recommends that any officer who wants a master's degree, should: 1) Do it on their own at night studies, which is how many Canadians, including public servants, accomplish this goal; 2) Attend school on a full-time basis, but pay for tuition, books and other academic costs. This would still be a good deal.

Imagine, attending school on full pay and allowances!
 
How else are we going to give them the education to walk straight into an Executive, COO or CEO job with a large conglomerate?  How else will we be able to produce future Lobbyist's? 

Last year's SCAN seminars were telling us that we would be entitled to $2000 per years Service towards Education after Release, to be used within the three years of Release.  At Christmas that all got canned. 

That is a good question - why are we giving these guys PG Educations and Degrees and not allowing Serving members of lower Ranks to do so?  Why are we squashing Education Benefits to the long time Serving NCMs and those on Release?

Col (Ret'd) Drapeau does pose a good question, when he asks why these guys don't use their own time and money to further their Educations.  Then we probably wouldn't have them going off to get "Master of Distance Learning, Master in Concentration Counselling, Master of Ocean Sciences, PhD in Psychology, Master of ergonomics, or Master of Aerospace Vehicle Design" degrees.


More questions than answers.
 
Drapeau says: "Think of the poor student who has to borrow, go into debt and live on the cheap to get an education. It's a good thing he or she doesn't know the fellow sharing classes is on an all-expense paid scheme and on full salary."
I can relate to this. I did one of my degrees with a Airforce NCM who was upgrading his education on this type of program. (I have no idea what program he was doing it under, but apparently it is not always just Officers who get to do this). Meanwhile, I was living effective in poverty and shelling out 50K+ for my education (in total), while he was living in comfort the whole time. I kind of ticked me off, so I tried not to think about it at the time.

However he was taking a degree that was applicable to his job as an Airforce Officer, and he also would not have been able to do it without this kind of program as he had a family to worry about etc. In the long run, I think it was good investment for the Air force, as they had an experienced worker who upgraded to become an educated skilled worker.
 
Actually, Pieman, in a case like that, where there is a NCM upgrading and getting a Degree in a field related to his Trade and a requirement (Now) to his becoming an officer, I see no problem.  That is what I would like to see RMC become (Covered in other Threads already.).  It is the Senior Officers abusing this to get Post Graduate Degrees in fields that may have no relevance to the CF that is obscene.
 
  It is the Senior Officers abusing this to get Post Graduate Degrees in fields that may have no relevance to the CF that is obscene.
I totally agree with you there.
 
George Wallace said:
Col (Ret'd) Drapeau does pose a good question, when he asks why these guys don't use their own time and money to further their Educations.   Then we probably wouldn't have them going off to get "Master of Distance Learning, Master in Concentration Counselling, Master of Ocean Sciences, PhD in Psychology, Master of ergonomics, or Master of Aerospace Vehicle Design" degrees.


More questions than answers.

Maybe I can answer a few of those questions, at least for my own situation, since I'm currently on a PGTP.

First off, I don't see my degree as some bird program for adding a few letters to the end of my name.  I'm taking a Masters in Health Sciences; Occupational and Environmental Health.  Once I'm done, I'll be put into a DHHAT so I can deploy overseas.  Without this degree, because I'm in a specialist trade, my opportunities for deployment are nonexistant.

Second of all, I don't plan on being a CEO with a large conglomerate or an Ottawa lobbyist.  I plan on doing my time, just like everyone else.  Due to the pension rumbling a few year back, I signed on for my twenty when I was on year five.

Third, I used my own time and money to get my BSc.  The program I'm in is only taught in three locations in Canada, one of which doesn't offer a program that meets the military's needs (professional program vs research).  It is impossible to do this program by night courses...it's hard enough maintaining my sanity with the amount of studying I do these days, without throwing in a day job.  My day job is to go to school and work my ass off.

Forth, every other person that's in my program knows that I'm on full salary and the military is paying for it.  They also know that when I'm done, I'll be going anywhere the CF needs a soil sample or a noise level reading.  They also know that I buy four pitchers of beer when I go to the pub with them because I know what it's like to have a beer vs food budget.  They also know that when they graduate, they'll be making a hell of a lot more money than I'm going to be making, plus they won't get moved every four years, plus they don't have to worry about landmines as a health & safety issue.

Please do not assume that every PGTP student is trying to milk the CF for meal ticket.  Col. Drapeau (ret'd) should maybe learn what these PGs are going towards before he starts making blanket statements about their value to the CF.  You want a civilian to do my job?  My entire tuition would be covered in less than a week's salary...
 
The CF should look into creating something like the GI bill here in the US.  There are a couple of programs available to both active duty and former active duty service members.

In the GI bill, we contribute $1,200 during your first year to the GI bill in order to qualify for $36,000 of education money once you get out.  If you serve only four years, you are still entitled to the GI bill.  The amounts have recently changed, but these were the numbers a few years ago.

While serving on active duty, you are entitled to 100 per cent tuition assistance up to a maximum of $5,000 a year.  If you run out of tuition money during that year (attending an expensive college), you can use a portion of your GI bill for top-up.  You can only use the in-service GI bill after you served two years.

If you are enlisted and apply for an officer program and you are selected, you are sent to a college of your choice (based on the list provided to you) and you are given three years to complete your degree.  While in college, you will be promoted to the rank of Sgt (or remain at the same rank if higher than Sgt) and receive full pay and allowances.  The catch here is that you can't use tuition assistance although you can use your GI bill or just pay out of pocket.  Your course of study does not have to be anything relevant to your chosen military field...as long as you get your degree.  As an officer (other than pilot), you don't necessarily choose your MOS.  You are assigned one.  You cannot be an officer without first completing an undergraduate degree.

Degrees are no longer for officers.  The Marine Corps has recently unveiled the MOS road map for every MOS in the Marines.  In it, it details the duty stations you should strive for, the billets you should fill and the military and civilian education you should complete for every rank level.  By the time you reach the rank of Staff Sgt (like a CF Sgt), you should have your undergradate degree completed.  This is not required although it is recommended.  Those with completed civilian post-secondary education will have a far better chance at being selected for promotion although promotion does not rest solely on a degree completion.

Just thought I'd let you all know what is going on south of the border as far as education benefits are concerned.

PJ D-Dog
 
Dirt Digger said:
Please do not assume that every PGTP student is trying to milk the CF for meal ticket.  Col. Drapeau (ret'd) should maybe learn what these PGs are going towards before he starts making blanket statements about their value to the CF.

Thanks for the input. That's exactly what I was looking for. Broader view.

Anyway, speaking specifically about Senior Officers, and as it was earlier stated by pbi, Master's and Doctorat Degree brings in the CF scholars of the same quality as in the civilian world. It helps think ahead and devise good policies for the CF. The CF has to get more Master's and Doctorat Degree qualified people. Compared with the US armed forces, we have a long way to go.

PJ D-Dog said:
The CF should look into creating something like the GI bill here in the US.   There are a couple of programs available to both active duty and former active duty service members.

As for the GI bill, this wouldn't improve the academic level of officers or NCOs. This serves to reintegrate the civilian world, which is all good too. Maybe the aforementioned article author is mixing up professional development programs and is just plainly of bad faith.
 
Again, Worthington and Esprit de Corps' favourite Col Drapeau are attempting to stir the pot to further their own ends.   As I have posted repeatedly, I believe that this group has an axe to grind against the CF's leadership and have repeatedly engaged in scandal-mongering to try to prove their rather nebulous points.

So, Worthington doesn't believe that a graduate degree in aerospace design is of any value?  Why not?   Does it not help the CF to have officers who are conversant with aircraft engineering, especially when we're about to spend billions of the taxpayers dollars on airlift and helicopters?   Or Ocean Sciences for a naval officer?   Honest to god.   Even an MBA is useful in dealing with civilians, including contractors and like, something that obviously isn't even considered by this type of "reporting".

Are there people who take advantage of PG training?   Perhaps, but I'd need names of people who have and proof, not innuendo.   An ATI-generated list of officers who have obtained degrees just doesn't cut it with me.   The Canadian Defence Academy approves all these requests and validates the requirement - the generals aren't simply handing out cheques to their buddies to go to Cambridge on a swan, despite what Worthington and Drapeau want people to believe.

I'm a DEO who did PG training part-time, paying for it myself.   Even with that, I don't begrudge funded PG training for any member of the CF if there's a genuine requirement.   Other armies do it, why shouldn't we, especially for the comparatively miniscule financial cost?  

 
First off, anyone interested should go through this thread:

UP FROM THE RANKS

It covers alot of the ground in a pretty detailed manner.

Second point, PJD-Dog's post is excellent in highlighting the way the Army needs to move in its approach to PSE.   As our Army further increases its level of professionalism, more brain power is a must.   The US Marines arm their Officers and SNCO's with PSE; they don't even take highschool drop-outs anymore.   Now, before I get flamed, this isn't a slight on those who dropped out and became professional soldiers - it's only that, in the future, we are going to have to consistently set the bar higher and making it to graduation is one of those bars.   "Education" (in the form of a PSE) shouldn't be seen as "Officer turf" or the status symbol that makes one "worthy of a commission", it should be a weapon that we arm our leaders with.   NCO's and WO's will need this tool to apply to their technical expertise just as Officers will need it to apply to their generalist expertise.

Finally, having got my degree right out of Highschool while I was a troopie, I do not think education is wasted on the young (or on Officers below the rank of Major).   Education isn't a set of skills, it is a tool that arms our leaders with the ability to use that grey matter to better accomplish the mission.   Now, like any tool, it may not get used properly and at times or the task can be accomplished without the tool, but having it in the belt while developing as a subbie is pretty important - it allows them to start applying their experiences at the bottom of the totem pole through the lens of what they have learned.   This way, when they become Field Grade Officers, they have a considerable mass of experience that they've already filtered through their brain to draw from.   Having said that, I think that the PSE for Officers needs to be focused; it needs to provide a liberal education (which one can use to later follow other fields) that is honed into a true military education.   As well, I think this military education is further enhanced if the officer candidate has been grounded through some time in the ranks.   I peeled my post from the above link to highlight what I think is essential in a "Military Education".

Infanteer said:
As for the idea of a military education here are a few of my thoughts on what should be in the curriculum for Officer Candidates in the Army (The Navy and the Air Force will have different requirements due to the fundamental nature of what these officers do).

1. Leadership:   Courses in Leadership should go beyond the basic "Principles of Leadership" that are constantly expounded on (these core values are kind of no brainers anyways).   Courses in the leadership field should also be based on Psychological frameworks (The physiology and behaviour of soldiers in battle, the mental effects of military operations, the effects of battlefield stimuli upon a leaders troops; ie PTSD) Sociological frameworks (Small unit cohesion and bonding, vertical and horizontal relationships of soldiers within the group, the military culture in general) and Management frameworks (Adminstration of your units and soldiers, etc)

2. Introduction to Tactics and Operations:   This group of courses should serve as an introduction to the bread and butter of a Professional Officer's career, winning battles for victory in wars with the endstate of preparing an Cadet mentally to successfully approach his technical training on commanding the basic group of his chosen trade (Ie: Platoon commanders course, etc).   Rather then begin with bombarding Officer Cadets with a host of technical terms and formulaic schema (which I think are wrong anyways, but that's another topic for debate), students of all branches of the Army will be first taught the doctrine of our Land Forces and be given basic conceptual lessons on a "two level up" principle.   Students will start learning about battalion level operations and tactics at a conceptual level.   Once they begin to see the combined arms approach that battalion commanders must make, then more complicated methods can be taught as the lesson progresses down to the platoon and how it fights within the commanders intent.

3. Military History:   This is essential to know who we are; the profession of arms is built upon the edifice of all that has come before us.   However, it should be remembered that we are trying to produce Professional Military Officers here, not Military Historians.   Simply teaching Cadets who, whats, and wheres of major historical conflict is useless.   The effort should be made at teaching the Cadets to understand the thought processes that were involved in victory and defeat.  

The main form of teaching this will be through the use of historic case studies; during the course the Cadets will constantly be challenged to evaluate the situation faced by historic commanders and ask themselves "what options does he have", "what are the limitations and contingencies that this commander face", and "why did he make the decision he made".   I remember PBI explaining how he and his coursemates in Quantico were reading Thucydides; they were not reading it to learn that Athens declared war on Syracuse on Sicily or that Nicias was the commander of the Athenian contingent, but rather to understand, through a historical casestudy, the idea of a hegemonic power (Athens) launching a questionable offensive in another theater in order to gain a strategic advantage against its Spartan enemy.   Thucydides Peloponnesian War is chalk full of useful lessons like this, that is why we still read it after 2,500 years.   It is this kind of approach that allows to truly apply the empirical lessons of history and how to apply them to the military profession.

4. Military Law:   Our unique military society is in part defined by our unique codes of discipline and administration that we live under.   Professional Officers must understand these laws and regulations and how they serve both the Army and the society it protects.   Lessons should look at the history and evolution of military law and its effect on the military culture as a whole.

5. Government and Society:   Professional military officers must understand that their basic obligation as a professional is to master competence of the management of violence on behalf of the state.   With that in mind, the obligations of an Officer towards the state and the population he serves must be reinforced.   Topics such as civics, civil-military relations, The DND and NDHQ, and the role of the Military in Canada should be included to ensure that the Cadet has a clear picture of the profession he is undertaking.

6. Languages:   French is required of our Officers, so naturally it could be included here.   But this does not eliminate the opportunity for other Languages to be taught.   Learning a variety of different languages will allow the Officer Corps as a whole to get a clearer "window" into the workings of other cultures.   This is an essential ability when aimed towards a form of professional development, as a multi-fluent Officer Corps can understand the cultural, military, and contemporary texts that help to drive and define the actions taken by both our potential allies and our enemies.

7. Other Topics:   It is important to offer other topics, potentially the ability to minor in, for Cadets to study, as the interdisciplinary nature of the Military Science or Art draws from all aspects of human society.   As an example, Dr. Jonathan Shay has written two excellent books on the psychological effects of soldiers through a combination of his work with Vietnam Veterans suffering from PTSD and by using material from the Classical Greek epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey (They are Achilles in Vietnam and Odysseus in America; I highly recommend them both to any soldier).   Obviously, a Cadet can pursue interests in History, Literature, Economics, etc, etc to broaden his horizons.

All these fit well under the conventional undergraduate career, however, they are specially directed towards building a professional military officer.   Many of these topics will be covered under a PO check withing courses throughout the Phase Training of Military Officers, but I think it is vital to teach them in a rigorous academic setting in order to allow Cadets to contemplate on what they are learning and to provide research and written work to further develop their understanding of the issues.   We must teach our Officers on how to think about all the important issues that they will deal with, not simply provide them with a "Technical Course" approach of filling the toilet with a gamut of information, checking the box once they pass a simple test, and flushing it down the drain for the next load of information; how does this set up our officers to critically think and understand issues that are related to the military profession?

Many of these courses will involve work outside of the conventional classroom setting using TEWT's, officer "tours", and visiting other places relevent to the course of study.   Of course, these courses apply mainly to Officers who will be involved in the Combat Arms and the Combat Support Branches; those in more technical branches, after being given the basic fundamentals of what their Commission requires, can be transferred into a relevent specialist program (perhaps at a civilian university if required).   As well, there should be a structure in place to give those who come into the program with a undergraduate degree an accelerated start, so as utilize the education they already have worked towards.
 
I'm a little tired of saying that Worthington is full of it, but:

"¢ If we want bright, recently sharp-end experienced officers to help sort through the ever expanding range of technological solutions (aids, really) to our problems then they need better and better educations;

"¢ RMC is a perfectly adequate source of good young engineering, especially, officers but more advanced work - at AETE in Cold Lake, for example, or in a project office or engineering directorate in NDHQ requires more;

"¢ Officers are selected for a job, then sent on the applicable PG programme - mostly a two year MSc programme specified as being required by the director or project manager (but yes there are some MBAs required - especially in some of the business-like areas in logistics and finance) - then (s)he does three or four years in that job and fulfills a four or five year (I don't know how many, things have changed since I served) commitment before release/retirement is possible; and

"¢ PG selection, like selection for a junior leaders' course, for example, is not perfect - a few dunderheads go and few really top drawer people get left behind.

It is my personal opinion that:

1. Our (your, really) basic officer education package needs reform - we (you, but old habits die hard) need a "Military Arts and Sciences" programme which looks more like McMaster's - http://www.mcmaster.ca/artsci/about_the_program/about_the_program.html - ideally with both BA and BSc degrees depending upon the weight of the science part.  We need professional logistics programmes - both BA and BSc levels - to replace e.g. commerce and engineering management degrees.  We need to keep Aeronautical, Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical and Mechanical engineering programmes to meet the needs of our engineering branches: MARE, MILE, CELE, AERE, etc;

2. We need more graduate programmes - less than 50% should be at RMC because the university is too small, graduate students should go to other, bigger schools where they will be exposed to new ideas.  Too many RMC grads return there for MA/MSc and study with the same professors - not good;

3. We need to expand, and maybe 'up-qualify' to graduate degree level, the Army's Tech Staff and the Aerospace Systems courses - perhaps by doing one year at e.g. RMC/Army Tech Staff and one more year at RMC/engineering;

4. We need our own Executive MBA programme;

5. We need to reinvent the National Defence College - maybe allowing some officers to pursue multi-year graduate programmes at major universities - leading to MA and PhD degrees in e.g. international relations.

Obviously I think Worthington would head us down precisely the wrong road - towards a dumb army, which is not, I suggest, what we need.

This is not 1950.
 
MdB said:
As for the GI bill, this wouldn't improve the academic level of officers or NCOs. This serves to reintegrate the civilian world, which is all good too.

I have to dissagree with you on that.  We can still use the GI Bill while on active duty.  I for one not only use the tuition assistance program for college but I also use the GI Bill to pay for my enrollment fees and graduation fees at my college.  I can also use it to help defer the cost of books for my classes as tuition assistance only covers the actual cost of the course.

For active duty, the GI bill can be used while in service or after you get out.  Benefits expire 10 years after you are released from active duty.

For reservists, the GI bill can be used for education immediately after leaving boot camp.  They have no up-front monetary contribution to make although they are required to sign a contract of obligated service for six years.  I am unsure of the total amount available to reservists through the GI Bill although it does range somewhere around $400 a month.

PJ D-Dog
 
The value (not to mention the relevance) of commentary by people such as Mr Worthington and Col (retd) Drapeau declines daily. Obviously, in their minds, the last good soldiers Canada ever had wore puttees and battledress. I expect that as they encounter less and less warm reception from those serving today, they will get ever more shrill.

Cheers.
 
Back
Top