It’s 2017. The Military Still Requires Officers To Have College Degrees. Why?

[blacktriangle]

I'm all for having "exams" at each rank level. A mix of trade specific knowledge and admin knowledge that you should know at your rank/for the next rank etc. Mix that with proper, meaningful evaluations of demonstrated performance and you might actually select good people.

Is the GMA a lot different than the CFAT? I ask because there are some people in the CAF that I'm certain crushed the CFAT, but would fail in leading even the most basic small party task. Heck, I've even seen some that could barely dress themselves without assistance. (Not joking, sadly)

 

[McG]

... I think we need directive policies, not open ended - with either the GiC or Parliament dictating "This many of this rank, this many of that rank" for the Reg F and P Res (Rangers, COATS and Sup Res are different).

I have seen an Army with this level of policy done by legislation.  It is cumbersome.

We already have it bad enough difficulty with non-legislated policy paradoxes where you are obliged to choose A or B while being prohibited from choosing either A or B. 

 

[dapaterson]

I have seen an Army with this level of policy done by legislation.  It is cumbersome.

We already have it bad enough difficulty with non-legislated policy paradoxes where you are obliged to choose A or B while being prohibited from choosing either A or B.

I agree that it would be cumbersome and frustrating.  That's a feature, not a bug, as it will force leadership to work within parameters rather than magically wish for dozens more fill in the blank) without considering the ability to generate and sustain that requirement, nor of second and third order effects.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The great fallacy, of course, is that you need to be:

a) A Commissioned Officer and,

b) Have at least a Bachelors degree

to be a good military leader.

If the main goal is 'high quality military leaders', then there are alot of institutional barriers that are getting in the way...

 

[OceanBonfire]

Well...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/01/30/staff-ncos-required-to-earn-college-degrees-the-top-enlisted-marine-could-see-it-coming/

 

[ModlrMike]

There should be few reasons why an NCO in the modern CF cannot gain at least a baccalaureate degree during their career. While there may be some arguments to be made whether it is or is not needed at the higher levels, there can be little doubt that even a BA can be helpful in transitioning to a post-service environment.

 

[MilEME09]

There should be few reasons why an NCO in the modern CF cannot gain at least a baccalaureate degree during their career. While there may be some arguments to be made whether it is or is not needed at the higher levels, there can be little doubt that even a BA can be helpful in transitioning to a post-service environment.

Some schools offer partial credit, MRU in calgary offers partial credit for Sgt and above towards a project managers degree, WO and above get move written off, in total I think it's about a year and a bit worth you get credit for.

 

[Ralph]

NCOs can spend their entire career at the unit; officers cannot. Staffers at a L3 or higher should be able to write at a post-secondary level in either (both) official languages. Having a degree is the simplest way to confirm that. Of course, there are functionally illiterate university grads...

 

[daftandbarmy]

NCOs can spend their entire career at the unit; officers cannot. Staffers at a L3 or higher should be able to write at a post-secondary level in either (both) official languages. Having a degree is the simplest way to confirm that. Of course, there are functionally illiterate university grads...

Some of the best 'writing training' I ever received was in the Army, well before I got a degree in History (which I paid for myself). The training was a mix of in person and distance/self-directed learning and took about 2 weeks in total, I would guess, over the course of a few months.

It really helped me at University, you know, 9 years after I had been commissioned and was leading troops - more or less effectively - on operations etc....

All of this to say the Army (Navy, RCAF etc) can do a really good job ourselves, if we put our minds to it.

 

[FJAG]

Some of the best 'writing training' I ever received was in the Army, well before I got a degree in History (which I paid for myself). The training was a mix of in person and distance/self-directed learning and took about 2 weeks in total, I would guess, over the course of a few months.

It really helped me at University, you know, 9 years after I had been commissioned and was leading troops - more or less effectively - on operations etc....

All of this to say the Army (Navy, RCAF etc) can do a really good job ourselves, if we put our minds to it.

 

Got my two years of pre-law undergraduate while a subbie. And that was before the CAF gave you money to do so.

I still credit Staff School for teaching me how to study properly so that I could make it through and get my law degree. Sure as heck wouldn't have been able to do it when I came out of high school all bored with sitting in a classroom. I still call the Reg F artillery my "gap thirteen years".

;D

 

[Good2Golf]

I still credit Staff School for teaching me how to study properly so that I could make it through and get my law degree. Sure as heck wouldn't have been able to do it when I came out of high school all bored with sitting in a classroom. I still call the Reg F artillery my "gap thirteen years".

;D

Closing Avenue Road without direct/functional replacement was shortsighted. The Services were rarely able to supplant CFSS’ coursework/value.  The RCAF did (still does?) a pretty good staff writing ‘refresher’ (albeit with a technical flavour) on the Aerospace Systems Course/Program.  It was ironically one of the most disciplined writing courses I had taken, and that includes plsc and pcsc.

Regards
G2G

 

[ModlrMike]

NCOs can spend their entire career at the unit..

Support trades not so much.

Of course, there are functionally illiterate university grads...

So right!

 

[Navy_Pete]

Some of the best 'writing training' I ever received was in the Army, well before I got a degree in History (which I paid for myself). The training was a mix of in person and distance/self-directed learning and took about 2 weeks in total, I would guess, over the course of a few months.

It really helped me at University, you know, 9 years after I had been commissioned and was leading troops - more or less effectively - on operations etc....

All of this to say the Army (Navy, RCAF etc) can do a really good job ourselves, if we put our minds to it.

I agree, and have found military writing to be totally different from University writing. It's pretty easy to bash out a 10 page paper; it can be really hard to put together a briefing note on a complex subject (with a two page limit, that effectively gives you about four paras of real meat to work with).  That's something I had zero official training on (Navy has no staff officer course), and would be useless except a few people took the time to explain to me what they are looking for and how to put it together.  Big difference between getting a bunch of edits to do, and understanding why those things need changed.

Really helped when I was loaned out to another department and putting together staff work for their chain; even though it was a different focus, it was the same toolkit. Needed some stylistic changes to be less to the point, but again, that was something I learned by some mentoring.

Bits of paper are nice, but doesn't really guarantee anything, or mean we don't need to train people. Does make it more likely you have some basic competencies, but think we should have tools to do an assessment and give people an equivalent check in the box, if they have demonstrated the competencies that you assume people come with a degree. If they can do it for a P.Eng, or an executive MBA, we should give ourselves that option as well.  If it turns out that they could just use a bit more practice writing, makes way more sense to send someone on a short writing course then require a bachelors.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm not sure about making that a parliamentary function but you may have noticed through my recent missives that I no longer trust the top layers of our military bureaucracy in making the right decisions for our force structure and management. So who does one trust?

As to the Class B fiasco, (and having been one for three years I know of what I speak), I do agree that we need to re-examine the whole system from top to bottom to determine which jobs in the military are full-time or ought to be part-time. That, however, takes you right back to the need to determine what the roles and missions of the CAF should be and which ones can be left to part-timers (assuming we also restructure the system at the same time to create a viable, equipped, trained and deployable reserve force).

I've always maintained that the big ticket items, such as major conflict, are rare occurrences for which you need a less expensive, larger and more capable stand-by force rather than an expensive full-time force that spends a fair bit of their salaries on pushing paper from one side of the desk to another or sweeping the gun shed and preparing one more time for the conflict that's on the distant horizon. We simply can't afford that any longer. The billions that Canada spends should get us more war-fighting capability than what we're getting. When you see the capabilities that our military leadership has cut, you can't help but conclude that they have no intention of ever letting us get into a real war. So much for deterrence.

There will always be short range  projects where you need to surge some reservists into Class B positions. The trouble is we've made Class B's a full 20 year career for some people and with the new pension system, that actually is what it really has become. We do need to stop gaming the system in that respect.

:cheers:

Each unit needs a core of Class B's and reg force to keep it functioning. You could put limits on continuous Class B to allow turnover, perhaps 5 years max. I would want at least 1 OR clerk, QM person, vehicle maintainer, along with a Reg Force Officer and NCO. those 5 people can effectively keep things running. To be really effective two OR clerks and QM/cook who can prepare meals once a week for training and in the field.

 

[MilEME09]

I have known atleast two people who stayed class B long term simply because they didnt want to leave if they went reg force. Whoch I do not see anything wrong with that, particularly at PRes units, where a reg force body may be better used elsewhere. I have also seen it where someone takes an out of trade class B, like say a tech working in transport, or supply, and the army just forgets about it till the person leaves.

 

[FJAG]

Each unit needs a core of Class B's and reg force to keep it functioning. You could put limits on continuous Class B to allow turnover, perhaps 5 years max. I would want at least 1 OR clerk, QM person, vehicle maintainer, along with a Reg Force Officer and NCO. those 5 people can effectively keep things running. To be really effective two OR clerks and QM/cook who can prepare meals once a week for training and in the field.

I actually take a bit of a different view.

I don't disagree with the fact that there is a need at the reserve unit level for full-timers. In fact I'm a strong advocate of that in exactly the way that you say, as officers, Snr NCOs, administrators, trainers, and especially as storemen and vehicle technicians (especially if reserve units receive full equipment holdings like I think that they should.) If I had my way and reserve units were fully manned and equipped battalion or regiment of 5 - 600 reservists would probably need some 30 to 40 full time personnel and their posting would count as a regimental tour.

But, by definition under s. 15(1) a person who enrolls for continuing, full time military service is a Regular Force member and by extension of that definition, a position that is intended to be filled full time continuously would be a regular force position. One only uses a reservist (by definition under s 15(3) someone who enrols for "other than continuing full-time serve") in a full time position for temporary periods of time where the position cannot be filled with a regular force person for a limited period of time or in cases of emergency where a force is required larger than the regular force can form by itself.

What we've allowed to happen gradually over the years is to create a larger continuing, full-time force (primarily of administrators) than the size allowed by the government. This was and is being done through hiring reservists, year after year after year (at less salary and, for a very long time, without a pension plan and other benefits) whose salaries are paid primarily out of O&M budgets. It's basically cheating at an industrial level and is essentially (IMHO) in contravention of the provisions of s 15 (2) and (4) which leaves it to the GiC to decide how many personnel shall be in the reg f and the res f. There's a lot of wink-wink, nudge-nudge that goes on here and we've certainly written the personnel policies that make it possible but in effect, it's still cheating.

What we really need is a complete redesign of the structure of DND/CAF from the ground up. We need to define what defence outputs are so immediate or complex that they require full time personnel to develop those skill levels or be available for immediate reaction and which are those which can be fulfilled with a reasonable amount of "mobilization" of reservists. The more remote the possibility of need is (such as a major conflict) the more likely it is that the output is a reserve one. Along the way we need to wean the system of its unsustainable higher headquarters overhead. We can't give any of those "major emergency" roles to the reserves until we rebuild the reserves as a manned, trained and equipped force capable of deploying on its assigned missions.

:2c:

 

[dapaterson]

Section 15 is operationalized by QR&O 2.09; unfortunately, I don't think there has been effective ministerial oversight (per QR&O) for decades.

It would be interesting to ask (via ATI?) for copies of any / all ministerial direction under QR&O 2.09, followed a month or two later by an ATI request for all the correspondence surrounding the development of the response to the initial request.

2.09 - MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS
(1) Under sections 15 and 16 of the National Defence Act, the Governor in Council authorizes the maximum numbers of officers and non-commissioned members in each component.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasury Board, shall, within the maximum numbers prescribed by the Governor in Council, determine the maximum numbers of officers and non-commissioned members by rank.

(3) Where the establishment for any rank is not filled by an officer or non-commissioned member holding that rank, an officer or non-commissioned member of lower rank may be carried against the vacancy.

(G) [P.C. 1996-1229 of 7 August 1996]

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting discussion. 

I will focus on selection and then follow on with the educational bits.

I have to ask why we still need two distinct rank systems from the ground up.  Why not have one entry system and then a branch level where people are selected officer training and the remainder continue in the ranks ?  Those heading the officer route would, at this time undergo the required educational evolutions.  While admittedly not the perfect example but the process from Medic to PA is an example.

Perhaps its my simple storesman mind, but I boggles me that we take twentysomethings with no experience and put them in change of thirty and fortysomethings who have been doing these tasks for years, and sometimes decades.  I don’t know any fire dept or police dept that allows direct entry into the higher ranks without some substantial time actually gaining experience at the bottom rung.

 

[stoker dave]

I boggles me that we take twentysomethings with no experience and put them in change of thirty and fortysomethings who have been doing these tasks for years, and sometimes decades. 

That is a good point.  Another consideration is that today's young people can reasonably expect to have a life span approaching 100 years.  Fifty years from now retirement age might approach 70 or 80.  I don't see why there is a big rush to hurry young people along so much. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

That is a good point.  Another consideration is that today's young people can reasonably expect to have a life span approaching 100 years.  Fifty years from now retirement age might approach 70 or 80.  I don't see why there is a big rush to hurry young people along so much.

.... because those Dilbert bins at the plehtora of HQs won't fill themselves