Image of RMC in the eyes of CF members

[BF1]

I recently retired after 25 years in the Reg F as a WO and as an Officer. 
As a WO I met all types of young Officers in the field as our troop seemed to be a training ground for young Troop Commanders.  Regardless of background, some would listen and some would not.  Those who would not listen to minor suggestions like "Sir, the left ear of Scotty Dog wood is a good place for a hide" usually ended up embarrassing themselves in front of the troops when they got lost somewhere around Murphy's Pit.  It's fine not to listen to the voice of experience in Gagetown, but don't do it in theater as it will cost lives.
As an Officer, I commissioned under UTPM and was sent to a Civi U.  Due to my commissioning program I did my Basic Officer training with young Cadets heading off to RMC.  I can honestly say that these young recruits were a mix of arrogant, capable, cocky, incompetent, hard charging, lazy and smart individuals. These characteristics were resident before they went to RMC.  When I saw some of these young Officers a few years later, I found their characters had not changed, but those characteristics I mentioned earlier had become stronger.  All that to say, I don't think RMC creates any specific type of Officer, but the experience does enhance those character traits we see after graduation, for good and bad.[/b][/b]

 

[Welshy]

From my experience, the general sense at RMC these days is one of disdain for the entire institution. I think the culture of ring knockers may be dying out, but then again i could be wrong. They seem pretty fed up with the direction the institution seems to be heading, but I realise OCDTs love to complain, I would know .

From my experience of working with both Civy U and RMC, I found that the Civy U students were more independent due to the fact that they have to take care of themselves the entire time they are at school. Personally the idea of a finishing school seems much better to me, by allowing students to concentrate on school and then focus solely on their military careers and gain some experience.

There is alot of generalizations being made on this topic and it is important not to judge someone before you have even worked with them. Not all junoir officers coming out of the program are going to be bad and hell maybe some might even change their ways.

 

[armyvern]

There is alot of generalizations being made on this topic and it is important not to judge someone before you have even worked with them. Not all junoir officers coming out of the program are going to be bad and hell maybe some might even change their ways.

Well, there's a generalization if I ever saw one, considering no-one in this thread has neither insinuated that all junior officers coming out of the RMC program were going to be bad, nor that none of them would change their ways once out in the real world.

 

[observor 69]

From my experience, the general sense at RMC these days is one of disdain for the entire institution. I think the culture of ring knockers may be dying out, but then again i could be wrong. They seem pretty fed up with the direction the institution seems to be heading, but I realise OCDTs love to complain, I would know .

From my experience of working with both Civy U and RMC, I found that the Civy U students were more independent due to the fact that they have to take care of themselves the entire time they are at school. Personally the idea of a finishing school seems much better to me, by allowing students to concentrate on school and then focus solely on their military careers and gain some experience.

There is alot of generalizations being made on this topic and it is important not to judge someone before you have even worked with them. Not all junoir officers coming out of the program are going to be bad and hell maybe some might even change their ways.

Ya I think the idea of a Sandhurst, ie. Civy u followed by  officer training has definite appeal.  After having four years to mature, and accumulate student debt,  candidates could be more motivated in their career choice.

 

[Shamrock]

As academics, I know some of my profs at Queen's were also instructing at RMC;  I even had RMC cadets in a few of my classes.

 

[s23256]

I'll have a crack at the original question from the point of view of a relatively recent (2005) RMC grad.  My overall image of RMC looking back is that of an institution which has the potential to be an effective tool in the CF training system but struggles with a variety of identity issues and is currently, as was stated, hardly good value for money.  I will direct my comments along the three areas of interest which have cropped up in this thread, which conveniently parallel my own views, these being academics, military training, and overall culture.  As a caveat these are my opinions and are based on my experiences as a mech eng student and infantry officer candidate during my time at the college.  I invite members with a deeper insight into the issues driving the direction of the college to correct any false assumptions or errors which are mine alone.

In terms of its function as an academic institution RMC enjoys a variety of advantages which make it hard to beat.  Chief among these is the instructor to student ratio.  One would be hard pressed to find another university where one can complete an accredited degree in mechanical engineering while never being in a class with more than 70 students, and with an average class size of less than 25.  Coupled with the excellent facilities available, especially considering the size of the student body and the ability, as applicable, to draw on instructors with experience utilizing the skills taught in the field RMC is able to provide an excellent standard of academic instruction. 

Military training is one of the major stumbling blocks of RMC in terms of concept and execution, and is the crux of the major identity crisis.  Is RMC an academic institution or a military training facility, does it provide general military instruction or trade specific training?  These issues tend to limit the ability to conduct military training of any real value as proponents of one camp or another will always step in.  For example, mandatory morning PT was not allowed during my time due to the requirements of academics and the variety of trades and elements represented at the college made it impossible to conduct any kind of specialized training on a large scale as, for example (and understandably), most pilots had little interest in conducting platoon attacks etc.  As a result, RMC provides little if any useful military training and anyone who thinks that their time there makes them a better officer in terms of the technical aspects of their trade is deluding themselves.

The overall culture of RMC as an institution seems to be the largest bone of contention for those looking in, and in many cases I tend to agree.  Some of the attitudes and conduct I witnessed there would have resulted in a swift and violent removal from command, and likely a release in the "real" army (insert element as applicable).  And this of course is the problem.  RMC is the real army, why should it be any different or have a different disciplinary system, somewhat like a juvenile record (take that one any way you wish), than the real army.  The tolerance for incompetence and poor conduct I witnessed there (I won't go into any horror stories, everyone knows them all already) is a likely cause for the disdain towards its graduates which has been expressed above.  The real value of RMC over civilian university should be the opportunity for the chain of command to evaluate officer candidates on a long term basis, and weed out or develop those whose attitudes are not compatible with the military ethos.  Instead it seems to be run something like a summer camp with counselors chosen from within the ranks of the campers on, what appears to the cadet population, an arbitrary or uninformed basis.  I won't go into my issues with the cadet chain of command for fear of overloading the server, suffice to day that it is a poor analogue  for command in the real world.  RMC could certainly do with an influx of the real world in the form of a larger cadre of NCO instructors, contingent on the understanding that they would conduct training in their areas of expertise and have a real say in who was successfull at the college and who was tubed.  During my tenure, Sqn NCOs were employed as drill instructors and maybe taught the odd general interest military knowledge class on a Wednesday morning, hardly efficient use of a technical expert with up to 20 years of experience.  Overall, if a somewhat more military demeanour could be instillled, a more liberal release policy would certainly help in that regard, I believe the quality of the product, and thereby the image projected could be greatly improved. 

In my mind there are a few steps which could be taken to deal with the current issues.  By instilling a more military bearing, and less lenient treatment of those candidates who become the source of its poor reputation, I believe the overall image could be considerably improved.  This must be supported by a greater emphasis on military training, both general and trade specific.  Employing a cadre of NCO instructors to conduct continuation training between summer courses would have the advantages of maintaining and developing skills instead of letting them fade over the school year, allowing candidates to work with NCOs and learn their place before unit employment, and allowing those same NCOs to provide input on the candidates.  If the place was run less like a "private school for the privileged" and actually developed those with potential while disposing of those who displayed none the credibility of its graduates as well as the college as an institution could be greatly enhanced.

 

[Roy Harding]

Thank you, Spinaker for bringing this thread back from the brink.  Your post was informative and well thought out - and backed by experience.

As an aside, my oldest son achieved his Mech Eng (BSc) at U of A - the horror stories he tells of professor/student ratios are horrendous.

As someone who served for 25 years, and achieved the rank of WO, I dealt with many RMC grads.  I got out in 2004, but I had just begun to notice the trend others have mentioned regarding the ego of RMC grads. 

My overall experience in dealing with RMC grads during the '80s and '90s, however, was that they were hard chargers, who needed to be reined in occasionally, but after stepping on their dicks once or twice they carried on to become excellent leaders.  I hope that whatever changes happened in the late '90s/early '00s can be reversed to bring back the type of graduate I had the pleasure to serve with and under for the majority of my career.

Roy

 

[vonGarvin]

Being an alumnus of The University of Western Ontario, I tend to look down upon all other Canadian universities, RMC included.

In all seriousness, however, RMC is a fine institution, well-respected academically and military institution.  As an institution, however, it is more like a living breathing evolving thing as opposed to a collection of brick, mortar and Cadets.  As others have pointed out, there are a variety of personalities that come out of RMC.  Some are fine, some are not.  This, I must point out, is true of most things on this planet: no two things are the same, nor are they alike.

So, to sum up, RMC is fine.  I will not pre-judge anyone who comes from there: I will judge them on their own merits, not their source school, pedigree, province, whatever.  As for how RMC conducts its own affairs, I know too little about it to make any qualified comment.

 

[Lumber]

It is an unfortunate pain that it must interact with the CF from time to time rather than existing in glorious isolation.

How do you expect to fix the problem of the "inherent arrogance" of RMC cadets if you isolate them from the rest of the CF? The only way I can see, based on my extremely little experience, that this is going to be fixed, is to further integrate RMC with the CF and allow the values and character of the CF to be imposed upon the cadets. Am I wrong?

 

[dapaterson]

I suspect CSA 105 was a little bit tongue in cheek in his reply; there is a certain school of thought in certain corridors of military academe that does not wish to see their gentleman sailors, soldiers and airmen "contaminated" by the real world, but rather wish to shape the clay in splendid isolation.

Personally, I think it would be of tremendous value for RMC to move to a 3 full semester system, and provide for mandatory work terms for the students.  Ship (no pun intended) a few dozen NCdts to each coast and put them to work and so on through the force.

I suspect the pendulum will swing back another way over time, and the balance between the M and the C in RMC will shift.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

As a fellow Western grad I will agree with Mortarman.  At some point you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that you are going to RMC and get over it.

In all seriousness, though, I can't say that I think about RMC too much.  It does have a nice library, though, and there are some decent fishing holes around it for my little guys.

This time really trying to be serious, in the Army in any case what program you come from really doesn't matter all that much in my experience.  The training at the Combat Training Centre is what matters and everybody is the same.  Your soldiers will make their impression of you based on how you interact with them.  If a young officer is arrogant and doesn't listen to advice then the troops will think that he is arrogant and doesn't listen to advice.  If he is humble and takes advice then they will think that he is humble and takes advice.  Where he comes from won't matter one bit in that calculus.

Socrates advised us to "Know Thyself."  Despite his unfortunate end he was pretty bright about some stuff.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Interesting thread.

In the interests of full disclosure, I failed out of 3rd year at RRMC in the late 1980's- making me a pseudo-product of the MilCol system.  Even back in the day, us Roadents disliked RMC as being a poor copy of RRMC 

RMC today:  Having just graduated from RMC with a BMASC, I have to say that the academic work I did was pretty good- generally interesting and relevant.  Dealing with RMC and CDA administratively to get my degree, however, was a friggin nightmare- over the course of 5 years as distance student, I had to re-register like three times, because they kept re-organizing the Distance Learning Faculty- like I had nothing better to do.  No one could answer a question, even if you could get someone on the phone.  Customer service disaster area.

Somewhere, in the 1990s, the whole cadet wing came off of the rails.  Maybe, it was when they wiped out CADWINs (which I thought was a good system- allowed OCDTs to screw up without it necessarily ending up on a conduct sheet.  Also gave other cadets experience in drafting charges, conducting investigations and actually sitting summary trials).  When I was at RRMC, 230 cadets had 3 NCMs (the drill staff) that we interacted with on a regular basis.  They scared the crap out of us- but you listened to what they had to say and learned about NCMs.  We got lots of practice leading each other as cadet barman.  Again, we made a bunch of mistakes, but I found that my role as a section commander for 10 first-years actually did a pretty good job of preparing me for leading "real soldiers".  Sure, I made a ton of mistakes.  I also watched others make mistakes on me, which, interestingly, was the best lesson. As for the "adult supervision", they were extremely skilled at staying in the background and giving you just enough rope.  They also had balls of steel, because they took risks with their careers  (in many cases) by letting us make mistakes- big mistakes that probably would not be tolerated by today's CF.

I think the institution has potential.  But, they had better start to live, eat and breathe customer service as an academic institution for the CF.  They would also be well advised to give the cadets lots of responsibility and let them make mistakes, correct them and carry on.  As the students get into 4th year, the staff should be carefully knocking the arrogance out of them, without getting rid of the enthusiasm- it used to work.

Oh yeah- make it friggin hard!  Lots of PT; lots of drill; a Guards Regiment approach to dress and deportment.

My 2 cents worth

 

[Strike]

Ref the customer service...COMPLETELY AGREE!!

How many messages do you have to leave at the 8 different numbers that you can call before someone calls you back?  Why does it take 3 weeks to answer an e-mail after you've read it?

I also have to agree with the CADWINs.  Once they got rid of the ability of cadets to truly rule themselves things started going downhill.  Why should someone still have to be reminded of when they jumped another school's mascot during a sporting event 7-8 years after the fact?  CADWINs would have had them running the square in gaitors and on charge parade with extra duties for a week or so and that would have been that.

As for the staff (Sqn Comds), you get 2 kinds -- those who really want to be there and those that really don't.  There's no inbetween.  Fortunately (and unfortunately) the cadets aren't stupid.  They know who the deadheads are and either learn from the ineptitude of these people, or just get pissed off and bitter that these people obviously have no interest in seeing them succeed (which is why I said unfortunately.  We don't need bitter cadets with a chip on their shoulder).

Spinaker,

Are you sure you were Mech Eng?  You write like you have a BA!

 

[Good2Golf]

SKT, thing was, Royal Roads (drill academy and indoctrination centre for the Regimental System) was far more oriented to "The Military" and less to "book smarts" than either CMR or RU (Royal University).  I had a whole post about Gen Y / iGen'ers and those who went before, as well as the MND's contracting an Estimate on "How to Improve the Leadership Qualities of the CF Officer Corps?" to RMC's Academia....imagine the answer was "more education, more degrees, not so much military...that will come in due course"  :

Like some previous comments, I don't blame the cadets for turning out how they do on the whole today, the system actually is developing them that way.  Coming to RMC as a grad student after close to 20 years of operations was a bit of an eye opener for me...can't quite place my finger on it, but there doesn't seem to be as much of an innate understanding of the military way as I remember absorbing in the mid-80's at Royal Roads.  Alas...I can be one of those old curmudgeons who walked school uphill both ways...in a blizzard....


G2G

p.s.  Just what the heck was the purpose of this thread, anyway?  Is it just me thinking that someone was trolling for a "Don't worry, you youngin's, you're really not as bad as all those soldiers tell you during your interaction with the CF during your summer training"?

 

[Lumber]

p.s.  Just what the heck was the purpose of this thread, anyway?  Is it just me thinking that someone was trolling for a "Don't worry, you youngin's, you're really not as bad as all those soldiers tell you during your interaction with the CF during your summer training"?

The purpose of this was to satisfy my curiosity as to how the rest of the CF views the college. Whether it is a CF training institution similar to say, the staff college in Toronto, or, is it more like a elite, private military school more like Westpoint or Norwich in the States. No one actually commented on that, not really. Everyone seems to have used it to outline the difficiencies of the college, and the shortcoming and horrible character of its graduates.

 

[aesop081]

  the difficiencies of the college, and the shortcoming and horrible character of its graduates.

Right there....is the answer to your question on how the college is seen.

 

[Michael OLeary]

No he is not.  His questions have been answered, it is now up to him to accept that the image of the institution within the CF very much rests on the actions of those graduates who have experienced conflict outside of the College's insular environment. They are the one who have created and who help to maintain that image.

Locked unless someone can provide contributions beyond repetitive postings or "Oh yeah" poke-chest responses more worthy of a happy hour bar.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Good2Golf]

The purpose of this was to satisfy my curiosity as to how the rest of the CF views the college. Whether it is a CF training institution similar to say, the staff college in Toronto, or, is it more like a elite, private military school more like Westpoint or Norwich in the States. No one actually commented on that, not really. Everyone seems to have used it to outline the difficiencies of the college, and the shortcoming and horrible character of its graduates.

Hmmm...oh, the deficiencies irony. 

Okay, in considering my experiences and those of the majority with whom I've discussed this issue, the overall impression I have is that of late, RMC appears as an institution trying to respond to the Department's drive to enhance the quality of young CF officers by stressing education, yet misses the mark.  Today's young officer graduates appear to have a harder time integrating as military members into the CF to conduct the "Art of War" than in days past. 

I see RMC neither as a training institution like CFCSC, CLFCSC, etc... (focused on the professional development of war fighting), nor as an "elite" private school.  It is a university that provides an introduction to military service, including a fabricated hierarchy, to simulate to some degree the rank structure that graduates may be expected to experience after commissioning.  As many have noted, amongst other issues, the simulation falls short by not having a sufficient quantity of NCOs to inject enough of the experience in working with the very soldiers, sailors and airmen for whom the graduates one day will have responsibility.

Take it for what it's worth, free commentary.

G2G

*edit:* Sorry Michael, this was in the breech, now in the clearing bay... ; )

 

[EME_007]

Wow... At this stage in the game, I really can't see much of a difference between RMC grads and civi-U grads - an important basis used for judging the college.  Maybe it's because I'm still on course and it's about a 50-50 split (with some CFRs thrown in for good measure to keep all of us young'uns in line!). Is the difference only apparent when we're actually put in charge of 'real' people as opposed to students?  Or maybe our BOTP instructors just did a great job of squishing any possible inkling of RMC/ROTP-superiority out of my generation right from the get-go - I always felt that they did a pretty good job of reminding us that the way things worked at RMC was not the same as the real world  

 

[HYBRID]

Having read everyones thoughts and opinions I will get straight to my point/question:
                  Should I go to RMC or CIVY U?        And this is my background...


1)  Currently a Corporal with 7 years service in the Primary Reserves.
2)  College Diploma in hand and currently working towards degree through RMC via Distance Study. (6 credits completed so far)
3)  I am currently a Commercial Helicopter Pilot working for a company out in BC.
4)  Finally currently on waiting list for CEOTP for pilot occupation but have been contemplating switching to ROTP as the pilot trade under CEOTP may be closing this year

Thats the long story short.  Anybody who has a suggestion or who has been in similiar circumstances PLEASE give me your 2 cents. 
Thanks.