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

[daftandbarmy]

Good question.....

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

In 1940, fewer than one in 20 Americans had four years of college. By 2000, it was one in four.  A college degree was once widely seen as proof of membership in the nation’s intellectual (and  financial, gender, and racial) elite. Now, being a college graduate just means someone is able to pay tuition and wake up in time for at least 50% of their classes. And still, with very few exceptions, we require degrees of our commissioned officers. A guy can come off the street with a degree from the University of Phoenix (acceptance rate: 100%) and be closer to getting a commission than an experienced NCO with outstanding evaluations. Officer selection boards might do just as well if they required a note from an applicant’s mom saying “He’s probably not a complete dumbass.”

Academic degrees aren’t great markers of leadership quality… and requiring degrees shuts out a lot of potential officers with a talent for the work. It’s time we changed that.

http://taskandpurpose.com/2017-military-still-requires-officers-college-degrees/

 

[Halifax Tar]

Good read.  It raises some valid points. 

Thanks for sharing!

 

[dapaterson]

Unfortunately, the Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces is no longer available online; recommendation 10 of that report is what drives the CAF "Degreed Officer Corps".  Unfortunately, the intent of building a more robust intellectual underpinning to the Profession of Arms has been reduced to a checklist item.

 

[Old Sweat]

Let me, as someone who was commissioned and served without a degree, offer a few thoughts from back when the earth was still cooling. I remember any number of briefings by the high-priced help in which they remarked that there was no guarantee that any one candidate for officer training would make a useful and successful officer. Over the years various armies tried all sorts of election criteria, and all proved to be equally mediocre: breeding; degrees; military academies; selection boards; practical tests - none were infallible and most were a waste of time and resources. It all depended on how the candidate performed under tons of stress during their training, and even then performance on regimental duty was the ultimate test. Maybe we you have got smarter and discovered the magic solution since I came through in 1960-1961, but somehow I doubt it.

Does that mean we should just arbitrarily grab people out of the line at recruiting stations? Nope, there is room for some sorting process, but dependence on a degree is not the answer, it is an answer.

 

[dapaterson]

Nope, there is room for some sorting process, but dependence on a degree is not the answer, it is part of an answer.

I'd add the bold bit above.  A degree an and of itself is not an answer; you can earn a degree but still be in the bottom 2% of applicants.

 

[Kirkhill]

....Over the years various armies tried all sorts of election criteria, and all proved to be equally mediocre: breeding; degrees; military academies; selection boards; practical tests - none were infallible and most were a waste of time and resources. ....

I think you missed one - the ability to finance your own battalion.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I think Gault did all right with the PPCLI.

 

[FJAG]

Like Old Sweat, I'm a product of the OCTP system where only education requirement was to have junior matriculation which back the was grade 12 (Ontario).

In the summer of 1970 we graduated roughly 10 OCTP and 10 ROTP Phase 4 Arty Officers who all went to regiments and subsequent to that we seemed to parallel the numbers that quit early or went on to middling success. Can't recall any of us that hit the stratosphere as a general.

The only thing that I ever thought might have given the ROTP guys a bit of an edge was that they were all, on average, four years older (and therefore slightly more mature) than we OCTP guys. After a year or two with the regiment that counted for nothing and their degrees were of zero value to them and the CF and if anything gave them more incentive to leave the CF early for a civilian career.

I still don't understand why we would waste the first four youthful years of an officer's career in a classroom.

In my mind we would do better if we took in a large number of physically fit eighteen year olds with good levels of high school education, aptitude test scores etc and have them enroll as privates, complete basic and corps training and serve with a battalion for a year or so before being finally evaluated for acceptance as officers and then sent on leadership and corps training before commissioning.

But then, since our big brother down south demands that all junior officers have a college or university degree, we'll probably just stay the course.

:cheers:

 

[Pusser]

I think Gault did all right with the PPCLI.

Yes, but he had the good sense to find an experienced officer to command it.  He did not immediately take command.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Like Old Sweat, I'm a product of the OCTP system where only education requirement was to have junior matriculation which back the was grade 12 (Ontario).

In the summer of 1970 we graduated roughly 10 OCTP and 10 ROTP Phase 4 Arty Officers who all went to regiments and subsequent to that we seemed to parallel the numbers that quit early or went on to middling success. Can't recall any of us that hit the stratosphere as a general.

The only thing that I ever thought might have given the ROTP guys a bit of an edge was that they were all, on average, four years older (and therefore slightly more mature) than we OCTP guys. After a year or two with the regiment that counted for nothing and their degrees were of zero value to them and the CF and if anything gave them more incentive to leave the CF early for a civilian career.

I still don't understand why we would waste the first four youthful years of an officer's career in a classroom.

In my mind we would do better if we took in a large number of physically fit eighteen year olds with good levels of high school education, aptitude test scores etc and have them enroll as privates, complete basic and corps training and serve with a battalion for a year or so before being finally evaluated for acceptance as officers and then sent on leadership and corps training before commissioning.

But then, since our big brother down south demands that all junior officers have a college or university degree, we'll probably just stay the course.

:cheers:

And, perhaps, recognize NCMs who show a penchant for wardroom activities and talent manage them towards that avenue if they so wish ?

I feel we have a plethora of NCMs who would make excellent officers.  But getting them into that stream is not as easy as it should be.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Where the degree comes in useful though is preparing officers for the mountains of staff work they will be required to do as they progress in their career.

The military used to have junior staff colleges which were sufficient in length to prepare someone for this; however, the institution has largely outsourced this now. 

This puts us in line with many corporations who up until just before the turn of this century also offered large corporate training packages to its employees.  What was happening is employees would receive the training and then leave the company.  It is a waste of resources to train someone only to have them leave and work for a competitor or start their own company.

At the end of the day, anyone who wants to can pursue higher education and put in the time to get a degree and become an Officer. 

The military doesn't need to get rid of the degree requirement but it needs to get a heck of a lot better at talent management.  I can think of one success story I had a small part in a few years ago.

We had a soldier (corporal), who was a very capable individual, who had a Bachelors and Masters Degree.  He was spotted and offered a CFR which he took and is now an RCR Captain.

 

[Loachman]

Where the degree comes in useful though is preparing officers for the mountains of staff work they will be required to do as they progress in their career.

I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.

The military used to have junior staff colleges which were sufficient in length to prepare someone for this; however, the institution has largely outsourced this now.

The CF Staff School on Avenue Road in Toronto was an eight-week course. That's a lot less of a waste of time and money than a degree.

 

[dapaterson]

Some of this comes down to philosophical concepts of education vs training.  Simplified, training improves performance of specific tasks; education develops reasoning and judgement.

Ideally, if we truly believe in Mission Command, we want an officer corps with those qualities (reasoning and judgement), so they are adaptable to changing situations.

http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-training-and-education.html#ixzz4W0ZEK5oD

 

[Baz]

I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.

I total y concur, but...

My experience is that one thing that happened is that the definition of "staff work" became muddied.

People now group admin and technical work in with staff work, I don't think it is:
- admin work is supporting your people and unit administratively
- technical work is supporting your weapon systems
- staff work is supporting your commander

Staff work is not just about producing paper; it is understanding your part of the problem as a SME, then presenting the problem and COAs as a unified understanding to the commander, and implementing the solution.

It is not about the paper, it is about *thinking*.

I had an interesting discussion once with a person he was Wing A3 while I was at HOTEF (Operational Test): it was about Aircrew Allowance and staff work.  He thought HOTEF shouldn't get it because they were in "Staff" positions.  Hopefully you can see the irony: he was in a numbered staff position and should have known his *primary* job was to support his commander and secondary job was flying, whereas HOTEFs primary job is to fly the aircraft for testing and needs to produce paper in order to support their technical role.

A culture of staff work being paperwork (of any type) has developed.  The ultimate expression of this is that I was told that I hadn't done any staff tours, despite being in a planning group in NORAD and a an operations group at SHAPE, because I hadn't been to NDHQ or 1CAD.

Very little of what ADM(MAT), for instance, does is staff work... it is important paperwork that keeps the technical wheels on the track so that the weapon system functions, but it isn't staff work.

Given that, if actual staff work is important to support Commander's critical decision making is important (and I think it is incredibly so, but not being done very well), then an appropriate degree from a institution that supports decision making skills (not a degree mill...) is part of a well rounded officer's repertoire.

By the way, this problem also exists in large civilian (public and private) institutions from my experience; possibly more so.

Disclaimer: OCTP (1990), BSc (Comp Sci) Dalhousie (1999); some of my most useful courses were third year Poli Sci seminar courses on Maritime Strategy and Law (I was only allowed in due to my military background)...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I've done "mountains of staff work" reasonably well without a degree, and seen many degreed officers who suck at staff work.

The CF Staff School on Avenue Road in Toronto was an eight-week course. That's a lot less of a waste of time and money than a degree.

This is opinion, just because you did it and it worked for you doesn't mean everyone should. 

Not saying it's right, just explaining why it is the way it is. 

Remember, your salary is tied to the public service rates.  No way the government pays a Captain 90k a year without a University Degree.

Almost any management level position anywhere requires at least a BA as a minimum. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I fully concur with Baz's explanation of what constitutes staff work as opposed to administrative/keeping technical records work.

All officers should be able to do their administrative work, with or without a degree.

All officers should be able to lead their "troops" in their operational field at a level commensurate with their rank, with or without a degree.

All officers in technical fields should have a degree in their field, because that is a requirement of their technical field and for the technical record keeping associated with it.

All Staff officers, as Baz has defined staff work, should have a degree because their fundamental staff work require them to be able to, on their own, recognize the topic at issue, formulate the right question to be answered, independently research material they may or may not have ever seen before, compile the relevant material, analyst it  and draw conclusions from the analysis, identify possible solutions, recognize the pros and cons of each, then draft or otherwise present the whole to their commanders in a cogent and comprehensive fashion. I am sorry to say that these skills are not taught in any way form or shape at the High School level, only at the University level.

And Humprey, I disagree that captains (as an example) need degrees because of the correspondence with civil service managers. Officers that fulfill the first two roles I mentioned above don't need a degree - but it is because they don't manage anything - they lead soldiers/sailors or airmen.

So there is no absolutely need for officers to have a degree and there is another way to deal with the requirements for well developed staff officers: The continental European model of General Staff. Officers, with degrees and a record early on of skill at writing tactical or strategic papers, get tested in national level tests for their specific abilities fro staff work and, if selected, are "career managed" through a series of staff courses, staff positions and field position in an accelerated fashion to get to the level where their staff abilities will serve the armed forces the best. Now that is talent management.

 

 

[quadrapiper]

I fully concur with Baz's explanation of what constitutes staff work as opposed to administrative/keeping technical records work.

All officers should be able to do their administrative work, with or without a degree.

All officers should be able to lead their "troops" in their operational field at a level commensurate with their rank, with or without a degree.

All officers in technical fields should have a degree in their field, because that is a requirement of their technical field and for the technical record keeping associated with it.

All Staff officers, as Baz has defined staff work, should have a degree because their fundamental staff work require them to be able to, on their own, recognize the topic at issue, formulate the right question to be answered, independently research material they may or may not have ever seen before, compile the relevant material, analyst it  and draw conclusions from the analysis, identify possible solutions, recognize the pros and cons of each, then draft or otherwise present the whole to their commanders in a cogent and comprehensive fashion. I am sorry to say that these skills are not taught in any way form or shape at the High School level, only at the University level.

And Humprey, I disagree that captains (as an example) need degrees because of the correspondence with civil service managers. Officers that fulfill the first two roles I mentioned above don't need a degree - but it is because they don't manage anything - they lead soldiers/sailors or airmen.

So there is no absolutely need for officers to have a degree and there is another way to deal with the requirements for well developed staff officers: The continental European model of General Staff. Officers, with degrees and a record early on of skill at writing tactical or strategic papers, get tested in national level tests for their specific abilities fro staff work and, if selected, are "career managed" through a series of staff courses, staff positions and field position in an accelerated fashion to get to the level where their staff abilities will serve the armed forces the best. Now that is talent management.

Would removing the non-technical degree requirement at the entry level, supplementing initial officer training to support whatever "staff" work is likely in ship/battalion/squadron service, and running an in-house degree program (perhaps two-year condensed Bachelors and Masters, at re-purposed military colleges?) for people at appropriate steps on the "staff" stream work?

 

[dapaterson]

Or do we need to rethink how we're structured?  We have more senior officers in the Reg F (Maj and above) today than we did when the Reg F was over 90,000 strong.  Nearly 10% of the Trained Effective Establishment is senior officers.  Can we streamline HQ functions and reduce the size of that cohort?

Maybe we need to get officers doing more officer stuff (and in smaller numbers), and empower senior NCMs more.  Where necessary, provide those SNCOs with training or education to enable them.

 

[Underway]

Professions require education.  Higher education.  You cannot be a professional (in the proper definition of the term) without it.  See Drs, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants, Nurses etc... Therefore the "Profession at arms" needs an education because minimum literacy and numeracy standards have to be met.

University education all but guarantees this where high school does not.  It also means that when you were out there in the world doing school you were also exposed to new ideas and different ways of thinking, which is valuable to any organization.  It also generally demonstrates your ability to self learn and manage your time. 

There is research held by the PSel branch that proves university educated officers are more likely to succeed in training and have the skills necessary to succeed in their first posting after OFP (65% predictive when combined with CFAT and new interview process).  This isn't to say that if you don't have one you are incapable or worse, just less likely to succeed.

Finally the real reason we have university educated officers is because of the Somalia Report which pointed out that the Canadian Forces officer corps were highly resistant too and lacked higher education (the groupthink problems referenced earlier).  IIRC it was below 40% of officers who had a degree.  The recommendation that came out of that was that all officers must have a university degree, which DND accepted with the goal that 95% of officers would have a degree of some type.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Finally the real reason we have university educated officers is because of the Somalia Report which pointed out that the Canadian Forces officer corps were highly resistant too and lacked higher education (the groupthink problems referenced earlier).  IIRC it was below 40% of officers who had a degree.  The recommendation that came out of that was that all officers must have a university degree, which DND accepted with the goal that 95% of officers would have a degree of some type.

Bad leadership begets bad leaders.

No amount of education can address that issue. Blanket policies like 'everyone will get a degree so we don't have any more war crimes' is a cop out, as well as being naïve.