I dislike RMC

[Mick]

I think the USMC has it right and hard for me to say that
USMC Camo Cover - 1980's
These covers are worn ONLY by USMC pilots. The purpose is to signify that the pilot was a "ground pounder" first. Marine Corps pilots must serve at least a year in the infantry before they are eligible to fly.
It also shows that their first job is to provide support to the troops on the ground.

I don't think this is an accurate statement.

 

[dimsum]

I don't think this is an accurate statement.

It might have been, years ago. Definitely not now.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The reason ROTP Civvie U is largely no longer offered (main exceptions being certain health services trades) is because the CAF simply has no shortage of DEO applicants, and there is little to no benefit for the institution to hire officers through ROTP Civvie U versus DEO... ROTP students certainly increase the percentage of a trade's strength that is on the BTL.

If the CAF were to close down RMC and CMR, it would likely be replaced by increased DEO hiring, not ROTP Civvie U.

ROTP RMC and CIvvie U is the same entry path. DEO is completely different as pers come in after they have their degree.

RMC costs more per head compared to Civvie U.

 

[SupersonicMax]

To me this sounds like another person complaining about the "free education" program offered if they sign the line.

You want to fly jets and get paid for it?
You want a free education and get paid for it?
You want to be able to take these skills the tax payer paid for and you owe nothing in 10 to 20 years and go make the big bucks working for some airline?

Nothing in this world is free.

You want your wings, you have to learn to play the game. Military officers in training are expected to get dirty, expected to play the army game no matter the colour of the future uniform.

How can you expect to lead down the road and tell some one to do a messy job if you have never done it yourself?

I think the USMC has it right and hard for me to say that
USMC Camo Cover - 1980's
These covers are worn ONLY by USMC pilots. The purpose is to signify that the pilot was a "ground pounder" first. Marine Corps pilots must serve at least a year in the infantry before they are eligible to fly.
It also shows that their first job is to provide support to the troops on the ground.

Getting dirty, doing the RMC cadet routine, doing your room, uniforms etc are all to prepare you to do your job as an officer so you can lose your mind on a soldier below you for not making his or her bed properly, not having the correct uniform on and wearing it properly etc, so when you are the inspecting officer down the road, you sort of have a clue how to react and behave, so you know what is the important things in military life. Making the bed is not as important as following the step by step guide in how to handle your aircraft in an emergency situation. But if you can follow the step by step directions of how they want your bed to look each and every day, and not cut corners, they know when you need to react you in your emergency situation you will follow the guide to the letter and no short cuts and you should come out of it okay.

get over your hissy fit

None of the Army stuff applies to being a (fighter) pilot. I am sorry. We do hard things. They are different than Army hard things. None of what I learned on BOTC or RMC (from the military component) is applicable to what I do today. I could have done without it and would have been fine.

 

[daftandbarmy]

None of the Army stuff applies to being a (fighter) pilot. I am sorry. We do hard things. They are different than Army hard things. None of what I learned on BOTC or RMC (from the military component) is applicable to what I do today. I could have done without it and would have been fine.

 

[Good2Golf]

Which does no service to those good actors out there who might be coincidentally tarnished with that brush of shame, of course.

That doesn’t happen…

 

[SupersonicMax]

I can confidently say, after 17 years of flying aircraft for the CAF that it is indeed a fact.

 

[Winds]

ROTP RMC and CIvvie U is the same entry path. DEO is completely different as pers come in after they have their degree.

RMC costs more per head compared to Civvie U.

Thanks, I am aware of that. The reason why ROTP RMC is currently offered and ROTP Civvie U is not (save for certain exemptions) has nothing to do with cost though.

DEO costs less than ROTP in general, both in dollars and in time spent on the BTL, untrained. My point was that if RMC closed down the intake assigned to ROTP RMC would most likely be converted to DEO positions, not ROTP Civvie U... the main reason ROTP still exists as an entry plan is to keep RMC and CMR open. With more than sufficient DEO applicants each year, there is little reason for ROTP to be offered at all (save for arguments about RMC's "value"). Same for CEOTP (which, like ROTP Civvie U, is all but not offered for external intake).

 

[Lumber]

Thanks, I am aware of that. The reason why ROTP RMC is currently offered and ROTP Civvie U is not (save for certain exemptions) has nothing to do with cost though.

DEO costs less than ROTP in general, both in dollars and in time spent on the BTL, untrained. My point was that if RMC closed down the intake assigned to ROTP RMC would most likely be converted to DEO positions, not ROTP Civvie U... the main reason ROTP still exists as an entry plan is to keep RMC and CMR open. With more than sufficient DEO applicants each year, there is little reason for ROTP to be offered at all (save for arguments about RMC's "value"). Same for CEOTP (which, like ROTP Civvie U, is all but not offered for external intake).

Yea but how good are those DEO applicants? RMC attracts the best Canada has to offer.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

"If you don't educate, you're finished"
-LtGen Viktor Krulak, USMC

I know a lot of smart people who for whatever reason hate school and they hate learning.
I know a lot of dumb people who have the charisma to get people to follow them.

There is a difference between being schooled, being educated, and being credentialed. The issue at stake is how often we favour those with credentials and schooling over those who have had an education.

I find too often this organization has failed by advancing the credential instead of the experience attached to it. I say this as someone who has worked in Brigade, Divisional, and JTF HQs for the past 16 years both as an NCM and an Officer( sans degree).

I examine the above quote and perhaps see a different meaning to his words: Educate can mean the requirement for credentials is so entrenched within Western militaries that it blurs the forest for the trees. It can also mean that if you don't take the continuous learning (through both theoretical and practical education), you're going to be left behind. I certainly don't see it as a "Bachelor's Degree or Bust" rallying cry. YMMV.

I think requiring officers to have degrees can reduce the number of these two groups who make it into the forces.

And yet, here we are. Many of our GOFOs behaving badly had multiple degrees, some granted by RMCC, and still managed to cause irreparable damage to the institution. I have met DEOs and ROTP folks that were extremely book smart, but fell apart trying to tie a full Windsor knot; and others that needed more red ink on a memo than some of the Cpl/Ptes they were in command of.

The best test of an Officer's mettle is how well they're able to motivate and lead a team under stress and privation. Staff Work and Field Command come with experience; and a lot of time, processes learned in University aren't applicable to how the CAF does business. We already have so much OJT within our respective trades, let alone different positions, that it's less of an indicator on a 2Lt's success if he has a BA or not.

At the end of the day, a Degreed Officer Corps 25 years on hasn't really improved the calibre of leader we have attached to that Comissioning Script. If anything, I would posit that it has fostered a belief you can train experience via schooling. Mentorship through DLN if you will.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There is a difference between being schooled, being educated, and being credentialed. The issue at stake is how often we favour those with credentials and schooling over those who Javelin had an education.

I find too often this organization has failed by advancing the credential instead of the experience attached to it. I say this as someone who has worked in Brigade, Divisional, and JTF HQs for the past 16 years both as an NCM and an Officer( sans degree).

I examine the above quote and perhaps see a different meaning to his words: Educate can mean the requirement for credentials is so entrenched within Western militaries that it blurs the forest for the trees. It can also mean that if you don't take the continuous learning (through both theoretical and practical education), you're going to be left behind. I certainly don't see it as a "Bachelor's Degree or Bust" rallying cry. YMMV.


And yet, here we are. Many of our GOFOs behaving badly had multiple degrees, some granted by RMCC, and still managed to cause irreparable damage to the institution. I have met DEOs and ROTP folks that were extremely book smart, but fell apart trying to tie a full Windsor knot; and others that needed more red ink on a memo than some of the Cpl/Ptes they were in command of.

The best test of an Officer's mettle is how well they're able to motivate and lead a team under stress and privation. Staff Work and Field Command come with experience; and a lot of time, processes learned in University aren't applicable to how the CAF does business. We already have so much OJT within our respective trades, let alone different positions, that it's less of an indicator on a 2Lt's success if he has a BA or not.

At the end of the day, a Degreed Officer Corps 25 years on hasn't really improved the calibre of leader we have attached to that Comissioning Script. If anything, I would posit that it has fostered a belief you can train experience via schooling. Mentorship through DLN if you will.

I wonder how that review led by “an external education specialist” on the costs and benefits “of continuing to educate cadets at the institution.” is going?

Arbour report’s recommendation to re-examine military colleges spurs debate​

The former Supreme Court justice raised the possibility that cadets attend civilian universities to help address the military’s sexual misconduct problems.
It’s not often that someone suggests a university be closed.

But that is one implication arising from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour’s recent report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which was released in May. The Department of National Defence commissioned the report last year, following a series of scandals involving the forces’ senior leadership, including the former chief of the defence staff and the senior officer in charge of military and human resources. Ms. Arbour’s mandate was to examine “sexual misconduct and leadership. The two are demonstrably interrelated,” the report states.

Recommendation 29 deals with the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC), calling for a review led by “an external education specialist” on the costs and benefits “of continuing to educate cadets at the institution.” The purpose would be to determine “whether the RMC Kingston and the RMC Saint-Jean should continue as undergraduate degree-granting institutions, or whether officer candidates should be required to attend civilian university undergraduate programs through the ROTP [Regular Officer Training Program].” That would essentially mean the end of the military colleges as they now exist, and a seismic shift in military education in Canada.

Ms. Arbour’s rationale is that both RMCs are rife with a culture of hyper-masculinity and sexual misconduct. Given the key role that the institutions play in producing the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces, she argues that fixing the schools would go a long way toward fixing the military’s broader problems with sexual misconduct.

 

[Kat Stevens]

None of the Army stuff applies to being a (fighter) pilot. I am sorry. We do hard things. They are different than Army hard things. None of what I learned on BOTC or RMC (from the military component) is applicable to what I do today. I could have done without it and would have been fine.

Or you could just suck it the fuck up and write it off as part of the price for a free education and a cool job, but that's just crazy talk, sucking it up is for us lesser mortals on the ground, not you Knights of the Skies.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Or you could just suck it the fuck up and write it off as part of the price for a free education and a cool job, but that's just crazy talk, sucking it up is for us lesser mortals on the ground, not you Knights of the Skies.

Sucking it up and writing it off as « part of the price » is part of the reasons the CAF is in the hurt locker now. If training is not relevant to a large group of people, we’re wasting time and effort on something that isn’t improving our capabilities.

 

[btrudy]

Sucking it up and writing it off as « part of the price » is part of the reasons the CAF is in the hurt locker now. If training is not relevant to a large group of people, we’re wasting time and effort on something that isn’t improving our capabilities.

Not just time and effort, but good will. When you force people to do unpleasant things that hold not actual relevance to anything they'll be doing in their job, it damages morale and increases the likelihood that those people will be leaving earlier than we would otherwise prefer.

We should be telling people to "suck it up" only when the thing that we're making them do is actually useful. Otherwise we're just making things worse for everyone; for the member who's hating life, and for the institution when our retention numbers are in the tank.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Or you could just suck it the fuck up and write it off as part of the price for a free education and a cool job, but that's just crazy talk, sucking it up is for us lesser mortals on the ground, not you Knights of the Skies.

That's absolutely the wrong track to take in 2023. Kids these days wont put up with "just because" institutional BS. They joined to be a pilot or a stoker or ect ect ect... And they expect to be employed as such, and that's a fair ask.

 

[Remius]

Would you feel the same if rando's with no affiliation whatsoever were saying the same things about the Dirty Patricia's?



Didn't think so. Now you know how RMC Cadets feel when everyone under the sun who never went there voices their opinion about the place.


The mission of the College has never been to "Produce Officers for the Canadian Armed Forces". It's been to "Produce Leaders for Canada".

Given the disproportionate number of Alumni that have gone on to not only high ranks in the Armed Forces but also gone on to be Rhodes Scholars, Captains of Industry, Astronauts, Olympians, Diplomats, Politicans, HONOURARY COLONELS etc. (The list is impressive, especially for the size of the school), I'd say they have done a pretty good job.

 

[btrudy]

That's absolutely the wrong track to take in 2023. Kids these days wont put up with "just because" institutional BS. They joined to be a pilot or a stoker or ect ect ect... And they expect to be employed as such, and that's a fair ask.

Seriously, some people really need to clue into the fact that we don't have an infinite supply of willing labour; in fact the opposite is true and it's by far the largest crisis that the CAF will see in any of our careers.

So maybe don't dick around people just because you think you can? Because while you can dick them around, what you can't do is dick them around and also have them want to continue working in the CAF.

Maybe, just maybe, have them do the things that they need to do in order to do their job; support them in their career progression and training. Stop with the petty bullshit just because you went through petty bullshit back in the day.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Seriously, some people really need to clue into the fact that we don't have an infinite supply of willing labour; in fact the opposite is true and it's by far the largest crisis that the CAF will see in any of our careers.

So maybe don't dick around people just because you think you can? Because while you can dick them around, what you can't do is dick them around and also have them want to continue working in the CAF.

Maybe, just maybe, have them do the things that they need to do in order to do their job; support them in their career progression and training. Stop with the petty bullshit just because you went through petty bullshit back in the day.

I don't understand a leader who perpetuates a useless evolution just because they had to do it in years prior. ALP/ILP/SLP Im looking right you.

Having said that much of our issue is that certain segments of our organization have a belief that the Army/Combat Arms way is the CAF way. We need to break this.

 

[dimsum]

Or you could just suck it the fuck up and write it off as part of the price for a free education and a cool job, but that's just crazy talk, sucking it up is for us lesser mortals on the ground, not you Knights of the Skies.

Ok - let's flip it around. Say you're going to be an Inf O and for whatever reason, you're going to the Royal Naval College. While there, you must take naval theory, stand watches on ship, and get half-trained as a Naval Warfare Officer before you drop all of that and wear green, then start your Inf O training.

Would you say that was the best use of your 4 years? Maybe you should do something more in line with their future trade instead?

SSM's remarks aren't just geared towards pilots. Anyone in non-green DEU likely has the same questions going through it. Saying that it's free and pensionable doesn't make it necessarily relevant.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I don't understand a leader who perpetuates a useless evolution just because they had to do it in years prior. ALP/ILP/SLP Im looking right you.

Having said that much of our issue is that certain segments of our organization have a belief that the Army/Combat Arms way is the CAF way. We need to break this.

This is one thing I don't get, even at war the majority of CAF will never be front line combat troops.