Auditor General Suggests RMC Not Working

[Remius]

I can assure you this does NOT happen.

RMC grads all KNOW each other; not all RMC grads LIKE each other.

What's far more likely is two officers are friends, but one is ahead of the other, and the senior one gives his friend higher PER scores, or fights harder for him on the merit board. This nepotism has nothing to do with the two of them coming from RMC; it's far more likely they did their subbie tour together and got **** faced on George street together.

I personally think the reason there are a larger portion of RMC grads at the top (compared to DEO and civi-U) is because we attend RMC in our formative adult years, and it builds into us a real sense of belonging and ownership over this organization. The idea that we are "soldiers" vice civilians who are working a job as soliders is stronger within RMC grads than it is with the rest. It's not that RMC grads are in any way better that civi-U grads, we're just more invested.

:2c:

Interesting.  How many join for the free education? How many stay on once they graduate? How many then stay on past their first engagement?  I’m curious to see what the breakdown by degree type and profession matches up to that.  Most people I dealt with when they applied for RMC were interested in the free tuition, how long they had to serve after and the doors an RMC degree might open. A few were I interested in careers and I don’t  doubt their investment but I found the DEOs more interested in a career.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I personally think the reason there are a larger portion of RMC grads at the top (compared to DEO and civi-U)

Does anyone have stats to back up this assertion?  I know a few Generals who were OCTP......

because we attend RMC in our formative adult years, and it builds into us a real sense of belonging and ownership over this organization.

I don't know where to start with this one.  Just about all members of the Forces join in their "formative adult years", but only an RMC Grad would express a sense of "ownership over the institution".  Others, like me, actually believe that we serve the organisation (and more importantly its soldiers) vice the other way around.

The idea that we are "soldiers" vice civilians who are working a job as soliders is stronger within RMC grads than it is with the rest.

Really?  Based on what?  Your couple of years experience in the Navy? Do you even realise how arrogant that sounds?

It's not that RMC grads are in any way better that civi-U grads,

On this one, we are in full agrement

we're just more invested.

Sure......

 

[Lumber]

Does anyone have stats to back up this assertion?  I know a few Generals who were OCTP......


I don't know where to start with this one.  Just about all members of the Forces join in their "formative adult years", but only an RMC Grad would express a sense of "ownership over the institution".  Others, like me, actually believe that we serve the organisation (and more importantly its soldiers) vice the other way around.

Really?  Based on what?  Your couple of years experience in the Navy? Do you even realise how arrogant that sounds?

On this one, we are in full agrement

Sure......

Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.



First, I started with "I personally think...". The rest is a personal opinion, not based on facts, but just on a gut feeling attempt to explain why a disproportionate number of senior officers are milcol grads.

Second, it's from the report that says that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

Third, and most importantly, I'm not painting everyone with the same brush. I did not say the inverse, which is that "non-RMC grads and not invested in the institution". All I said that, across the board, they are getting more officers with a sense of investment from RMC than from civi-U and DEO. How much of a difference? The report says that retention rates among RMC grads are about 10% higher than civi-U and DEO officers. That's it. 10%. That's it. That means that the vast majority of the civi-U and DEO officers are just as invested and committed to the CAF as the RMC grads. I'm simply trying to answer, why even the small the difference?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.



First, I started with "I personally think...". The rest is a personal opinion, not based on facts, but just on a gut feeling attempt to explain why a disproportionate number of senior officers are milcol grads.

Second, it's from the report that says that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

Third, and most importantly, I'm not painting everyone with the same brush. I did not say the inverse, which is that "non-RMC grads and not invested in the institution". All I said that, across the board, they are getting more officers with a sense of investment from RMC than from civi-U and DEO. How much of a difference? The report says that retention rates among RMC grads are about 10% higher than civi-U and DEO officers. That's it. 10%. That's it. That means that the vast majority of the civi-U and DEO officers are just as invested and committed to the CAF as the RMC grads. I'm simply trying to answer, why even the small the difference?

Based on my unofficial survey during my time at CTC, it's definitely better for your career, as an Infantry Officer anyways, if you're either from Mil Col, or a Franco.

You can still be awful, and pass. RESO and DEO? You generally have to be twice as good to get half the credit, and they'll still fire you more often

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.



First, I started with "I personally think...". The rest is a personal opinion, not based on facts, but just on a gut feeling attempt to explain why a disproportionate number of senior officers are milcol grads.

Second, it's from the report that says that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

Third, and most importantly, I'm not painting everyone with the same brush. I did not say the inverse, which is that "non-RMC grads and not invested in the institution". All I said that, across the board, they are getting more officers with a sense of investment from RMC than from civi-U and DEO. How much of a difference? The report says that retention rates among RMC grads are about 10% higher than civi-U and DEO officers. That's it. 10%. That's it. That means that the vast majority of the civi-U and DEO officers are just as invested and committed to the CAF as the RMC grads. I'm simply trying to answer, why even the small the difference?

Most of the recent RMC grads I've talked to feel more bitter and cynical about their time at RMC than invested in the CAF. It's not a good vibe coming out of that school, your personal attachment aside.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Let's take it down on a notch there, PPCLI Guy.

Hmmm.

First, I started with "I personally think...". The rest is a personal opinion, not based on facts, but just on a gut feeling attempt to explain why a disproportionate number of senior officers are milcol grads.

Second, it's from the report that says that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

Over the last 35 years, what percentage of officer intake has come from MilCol vice other entry systems?

 

[Infanteer]

I have never once seen consideration of academic background (MilCol/CivU) as a factor in performance/merit discussions.  I'm willing to bet money that "ring-knocking" as a systemic phenomenon is a myth.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have never once seen consideration of academic background (MilCol/CivU) as a factor in performance/merit discussions.  I'm willing to bet money that "ring-knocking" as a systemic phenomenon is a myth.

Well, I know it's only the Washington post, but this guy seems to think differently .... about West Point and other similar US institutions anyways:

"The service academies — the U.S. Military Academy for the Army (West Point), the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy — promise to educate and mold future officers charged with leading the enlisted members of the military.

But they are not the hallowed arbiters of quality promised by their myths. Their traditions mask bloated government money-sucks that consistently underperform. They are centers of nepotism that turn below-average students into average officers. They are indulgences that taxpayers, who fund them, can no longer afford. They’ve outlived their use, and it’s time to shut them down."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-dont-need-west-point/2015/01/23/fa1e1488-a1ef-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html?utm_term=.9ec5804859a1

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I know it's only the Washington post, but this guy seems to think differently .... about West Point and other similar US institutions anyways:

Irrelevant.  That's the US military.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Well, I know it's only the Washington post, but this guy seems to think differently .... about West Point and other similar US institutions anyways:

Irrelevant.  That's the US military.

I wouldn't say it is totally irrelevant to the discussion since it appears that National Defence's inclination is to make a comparison to foreign military academies when responding to one of the recommendations in the OAG report.

6.44 National Defence should explore ways to reduce the Royal Military College of Canada’s operating cost per student and consider reducing the number of programs offered. (6.34–6.43)

National Defence’s response. Agreed. National Defence recognizes and accepts that there is a premium associated with producing a Royal Military College of Canada graduate. Our preliminary initial comparison with other allied military institutions indicates that the costs per student are similar to, or less than, those of allied military educational institutions. We agree that additional review and analysis is required.

The Special Staff Assistance Visit report recommended targeted investment in key areas. Through further analysis, we will assess the cost structure at the Royal Military College of Canada to ensure it is appropriate given its mandate as a military academic institution.

 

[ballz]

On RMC helping your career...

RMC does tend to get them while they're super young, which in general helps your career. A second language definitely helps your career, and I don't think any universities outside of RMC literally force you to learn french. I would like to see statistics on how recruitment numbers compare to how many Colonels or Generals come from each entry plan. I suspect the numbers between 18 yr old ROTP Civie U grads and 18 yr old RMCs grads would pan out to a proportional number of generals.

I don't think such a large percentage of people brought through RMC is necessarily good for the CAF at large.... the military, and perhaps even more so in small military's, is an inbred organization. In the private sector, you can have mid-level managers all the way to executives come from completely different industries, and I think this is a positive for any organization. We don't have that benefit in the military (and I'm not saying we should), which causes us to be pretty inbred. I personally don't think it benefits any organization to have too many people that essentially lived life through one perspective from cradle to grave (in terms of their career... 18 being cradle and grave being retirement). For the military, by its very nature, has an astoundingly high amount of leadership whose careers from cradle to grave were in one organization. We train people to drink the kool aid through things like Mil Cols, and I don't think kool aid is good for us.

On getting rid of ROTP altogether...

I think this would be a bad idea. ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families. Personally, I think the more of our senior leadership who came from humble beginnings and had to get their hands dirty, the better off we're going to be for it. ROTP gives us a competitive edge from an HR perspective.... there are a lot of people who would not consider the military without it, and while some may see that a slight on those who "just want free tuition," I tend to like attracting people that are willing to get their hands a bit dirty to get something they want. I also believe I did see some numbers at one time that showed a pretty good retention rate for people after they finished their 5-years obligatory service.

Random tangent... I find it pretty frustrating how their seems to be very little data on this stuff. Can we seriously be not monitoring it?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The advantage of the MilCol system is a bureaucratic one.  You get four years of French Training which gives you extra points at the boards, you also used to get almost completely trained before you were finished your academic studies which would give you a couplw of extra years in your 20s for career courses, appointments, etc. 

The advantage RMC offers is those who want it gain additional time to complete the requirements of their development periods. 

When we still had OPMEs, I had all my OPME's completed and a BBC French Profile prior to even showing up at Regiment.  This gives RMC cadets a leg up because our meriting system is designed as such.

 

[dapaterson]

So perhaps we need to radically rethink official bilingualism, and align occupational training to meet the schedules of ROTP - Civ-U students over the summers.  (Which would also align with the P Res training needs).

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .  I also believe I did see some numbers at one time that showed a pretty good retention rate for people after they finished their 5-years obligatory service.

Random tangent... I find it pretty frustrating how their seems to be very little data on this stuff. Can we seriously be not monitoring it?

There is likely more current research but this is available for discussion sake.

Review of Attrition and Retention Research for the Canadian Forces
DRDC CORA TM 2008-030 October 2008

http://cradpdf.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530400.pdf

4.2.4 Commissioning Plan
A 1993 study (Bender et al., 1993) indicated that retention by officers commissioned through the
Officer Candidate Training Plan (OCTP) was generally higher than for the ROTP or the Direct
Entry Officer (DEO) plan. Since the CF decided to move towards a degreed officer corps in
1998, the OCTP was discontinued. For this reason, retention of members commissioned under
the OCTP will not be discussed further15.

Comparing attrition rates of personnel who came through the ROTP and the DEO plan revealed
that retention of ROTP members was better than for DEO members in the first five Years of
Commissioned Service (YCS). This is related to the five years of obligatory service required
after commissioning through the ROTP. After this point, retention was better for DEO members.
This changed again after 20 YOS, at which point retention was better for ROTP members. (Note
that these results are based on an analysis of the total population under study; there was some
variation in the results when the population was broken down by occupation group or individual
occupation.) Similar patterns were observed by Audet (2004).

Bender et al. (1993) also found that retention of members who came through the ROTP through a
Canadian Military College (CMC) was generally higher than those who attended a civilian
university, although the difference was not statistically significant.

A 1998 survey of ROTP cadets at RMC found that roughly four in ten of the students indicated
that they intended to remain in the CF after completing their obligatory service. A roughly equal
number indicated that they intended to leave. Those who felt that the education subsidy was
important to them were most likely to indicate that they intended to leave the CF after the period
of obligatory service (Environics, 1998b).

A more recent study indicated that only 9% of ROTP officers left immediately upon completion
of obligatory service. (This is in sharp contrast to the percentage who, years before, indicated that
they intended to leave at this point.) This figure can be compared to 6% for UTPNCM officers
(Audet, 2004).

The same study indicated that most officers from the Commissioning from the Ranks (CFR) and
University Training Plan – Non-Commissioned Member (UTPNCM) plans stayed in the CF until
at least 20 YOS – far more than for the ROTP or DEO officers. This is not surprising, as the CFR
and UTPNCM officers would have had a number of YOS before being commissioned.

 

[McG]

On getting rid of ROTP altogether...

I think this would be a bad idea. ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families. Personally, I think the more of our senior leadership who came from humble beginnings and had to get their hands dirty, the better off we're going to be for it. ROTP gives us a competitive edge from an HR perspective.... there are a lot of people who would not consider the military without it, and while some may see that a slight on those who "just want free tuition," I tend to like attracting people that are willing to get their hands a bit dirty to get something they want.

Are you saying ROTP is the only answer to attracted low income officers?  Have you considered a RESO stystem where officers are put into the PRes and paid when training.  Four months of summer training plus a few evenings and/or weekends a month will go a long way to covering the costs of university.

 

[Infanteer]

You guys are really shooting blind here....

I think this would be a bad idea. ROTP gives us access to a whole lot of people who come from lower income families.

Hasty generalization.  Do you have a breakdown in economic background of ROTP candidates to back this claim up?  I ask, because the claim is being made that ROTP = more chances for lower income Canadians to receive a subsidized education.  You could also generalize that most ROTP cadets at RMC are from middle class backgrounds and made a non-economic choice to attend RMC.

Personally, I think the more of our senior leadership who came from humble beginnings and had to get their hands dirty, the better off we're going to be for it.

Hasty generalization.  What evidence is there for links between competent senior leadership and one's social-economic background?

You get four years of French Training which gives you extra points at the boards,

Not completely accurate, as the extra points only come if that training is properly utilized.  I've seen people arrive from RMC with lower profiles (AAA, BAA, etc) while others have come out of local SLT courses we BBB/CBC profiles.

you also used to get almost completely trained before you were finished your academic studies which would give you a couplw of extra years in your 20s for career courses, appointments, etc.

While true, this "age" advantage is something that ROTP Civilian University also have, as well as those who go through the Reserve system and transfer to the Regular Force after they get their undergraduate degree, so this isn't an specifically an "RMC advantage."

When we still had OPMEs, I had all my OPME's completed and a BBC French Profile prior to even showing up at Regiment.  This gives RMC cadets a leg up because our meriting system is designed as such.

I was at that point 6 months after arriving at my first Regimental tour, so that leg up doesn't really last for too long.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The advantage of the MilCol system is a bureaucratic one.  You get four years of French Training which gives you extra points at the boards, you also used to get almost completely trained before you were finished your academic studies which would give you a couplw of extra years in your 20s for career courses, appointments, etc. 

The advantage RMC offers is those who want it gain additional time to complete the requirements of their development periods. 

When we still had OPMEs, I had all my OPME's completed and a BBC French Profile prior to even showing up at Regiment.  This gives RMC cadets a leg up because our meriting system is designed as such.

I appreciate you note the advantages are beaurocratic but I would add careerist as a better descriptor.

Completing OPMEs and having a french profile only benefit the individual and not the larger force. If there is no clear stat showing that having RMC actually improves leadership or military performance than how can the expenses be justified? As an example- the RMC sports budget for this FY is $1.3 million. 2 PPCLI's budget is $620,000, so RMC athletics (which are terrible) is worth twice as much than 2 VP (and all the other 1 CMBG units).

From my instructor days at the RCAS I noted that there was no real difference between RMC and DEO in either performance or maturity.

 

[ballz]

Are you saying ROTP is the only answer to attracted low income officers?

No.

However, if you look at the retention rates noted earlier, 40% of ROTP pers planned on leaving after their obligatory service, but in reality only 9% left.... That indicates that the 5 years of obligatory service probably has a huge effect on retention.

Hasty generalization.  Do you have a breakdown in economic background of ROTP candidates to back this claim up?  I ask, because the claim is being made that ROTP = more chances for lower income Canadians to receive a subsidized education.  You could also generalize that most ROTP cadets at RMC are from middle class backgrounds and made a non-economic choice to attend RMC.

I don't even need one for this assertion. If I choose to sell guitars, I have access to the guitar market, regardless of it's size. If I don't sell guitars, I don't have access to that market. Regardless of the demographics that actually take advantage of the ROTP, there is a portion of population, debateable about how large, that cannot afford university. By having the ROTP we have access to that market.

Hasty generalization.  What evidence is there for links between competent senior leadership and one's social-economic background?

I'm not sure about direct links to social-economic background but there is plenty of evidence that a diversity in demographics tends to make organizations more effective. However, what I offered was my personal perspective from my personal experience which was clearly articulated when I disclosed that "Personally, I think..." I don't need to cite literature or a study to express my personal thoughts, if I was citing a reference I wouldn't disclose that the damn assertion is my personal thought. Feel free to not be convinced, feel free to dismiss it as not substantiated, but perhaps you should spend more time at Wilfred Laurier if you think the only discussion points that can be said outloud need to be from peer-reviewed academia. Get off your high horse.

 

[Good2Golf]

I have never once seen consideration of academic background (MilCol/CivU) as a factor in performance/merit discussions.  I'm willing to bet money that "ring-knocking" as a systemic phenomenon is a myth.

I actually only ever saw an "active Ring-Knock" from a DEO bubba from Guelph U, who had a nice ring, but mis-understood that ring-knocker reference/bias/profiling.  There were a bnch of CMC grads (all three) around him, and none was a dick or showed attitude.

I'd buy what you're selling, Infanteer.

I've seen more dicks associate with them being just that, dicks, at heart, than what military/undergrad finishing school (or not, for OCTP) they attended.

:2c:

G2G

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I appreciate you note the advantages are beaurocratic but I would add careerist as a better descriptor.

Completing OPMEs and having a french profile only benefit the individual and not the larger force. If there is no clear stat showing that having RMC actually improves leadership or military performance than how can the expenses be justified? As an example- the RMC sports budget for this FY is $1.3 million. 2 PPCLI's budget is $620,000, so RMC athletics (which are terrible) is worth twice as much than 2 VP (and all the other 1 CMBG units).

From my instructor days at the RCAS I noted that there was no real difference between RMC and DEO in either performance or maturity.

You'll get no argument from me, I believe in merit based on who you are and what you offer, not the cloth you're cut from. 

RMC gives career advantages, whether it should or not is an entirely different debate.

If we keep RMC, there are significant enhancements that could be made to the program that would have minimal cost and fill out the M part of RMC.