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

[FJAG]

A lengthy but interesting article on the topic of what constitutes the perfect officer:

https://www.hoover.org/research/perfect-officer

:cheers:

 

[blacktriangle]

I don't see why there is a big rush to hurry young people along so much.

While I agree with Halifax Tar and the points he made, I'm not sure I agree that someone's career should be held up arbitrarily due to their age.

Let's face it, some people are "ready" at a young age. Others never will be. In the US military, it's not uncommon to have an E-5 (MCpl equiv) with 4 years of service. Some are E-7 (WO equiv) in a decade or less. I'm not saying it's always perfect (it's not) but they manage just fine.

If you intentionally hold people up just for the sake of it, you are going to lose some of your top performers. I think in Canada we often lose sight of the fact that the CAF is a military, not just another department in the PS. Not everyone is going to want to or be able to stay for 35 years, nor is that always in the best interests of the institution. You might have someone willing to give 4, 10, 20 years etc and that's it. Not to mention that the human body has limits, do we really need or want Sect Comd in the Infantry that are 50 years old?

 

[dimsum]

Let's face it, some people are "ready" at a young age. Others never will be. In the US military, it's not uncommon to have an E-5 (MCpl equiv) with 4 years of service. Some are E-7 (WO equiv) in a decade or less. I'm not saying it's always perfect (it's not) but they manage just fine.

I'm not sure that the CAF and the US military are really apples-to-apples in this regard.  We place more responsibility in our MCpls than they do on their E-5s (trade dependent, of course).

 

[blacktriangle]

I'm not sure that the CAF and the US military are really apples-to-apples in this regard.  We place more responsibility in our MCpls than they do on their E-5s (trade dependent, of course).

Definitely trade dependent, but fair enough.

 

[tomahawk6]

During Vietnam you didn't need a degree to qualify for OCS. After Vietnam the rule was tightened requiring 2 years of college for OCS and now a degree is required because some regard a degree is the mark of a professional. Through the staff and war colleges now Masters degrees are earned.

 

[Halifax Tar]

While I agree with Halifax Tar and the points he made, I'm not sure I agree that someone's career should be held up arbitrarily due to their age.

Thank you for your post, and your counter point is valid. 

I think perhaps, I was overstating the age thing when really I was meant to be referring the years of experience. 

My point was and is that we, for some reason, put education of the inexperienced and unproven over education of the proven and experienced.  To sum up,  I feel would get more from substantial and expanded CFR programs and a vastly lessened direct entry commissioning program. 

I didn’t mean to use age that much.  Thanks again for the nudge.

 

[dimsum]

Thank you for your post, and your counter point is valid. 

I think perhaps, I was overstating the age thing when really I was meant to be referring the years of experience. 

My point was and is that we, for some reason, put education of the inexperienced and unproven over education of the proven and experienced.  To sum up,  I feel would get more from substantial and expanded CFR programs and a vastly lessened direct entry commissioning program. 

I didn’t mean to use age that much.  Thanks again for the nudge.

Perhaps following some of our allies and imposing an age limit to become an officer?  I think the US military generally has it at 29 or so.

 

[PuckChaser]

My point was and is that we, for some reason, put education of the inexperienced and unproven over education of the proven and experienced.  To sum up,  I feel would get more from substantial and expanded CFR programs and a vastly lessened direct entry commissioning program. 

I think you're onto something there, but we also have to bring in a fair amount of new blood at the leadership levels to keep the pool from stagnating. If we bias too far over towards experience in the big CAF machine, than we may stop having fresh ideas on how to do things better.

Dimsum: Looked quickly, US Military is 32 to enter OCS. UK Military is 26. Aussies look like 50 is their max.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Perhaps following some of our allies and imposing an age limit to become an officer?  I think the US military generally has it at 29 or so.

Our recruiting for anyone is you need to finish your initial contract before hitting CRA.  If you start at CRA 60, means a recruit can come in around 55, and an officer at 51 (with a 9 year contract).

Not really sure what the point of bringing in someone to retire as a new Cpl or Capt, but sure there are both success and horror stories.

Time left before CRA (ie your age) comes up in succession management, which makes sense, but the one I saw clear guidelines for was heavily skewed to joining at 18 and going to RMC. If you are an ambitious high flyer that joined a bit later at life (ie late twenties) looking at that, it's not a great leap to see that means you should get out of the mob earlier and got to private industry if you want to go far, and there is enough head hunting going on that there are opportunities like that.

A few years ago someone posted an article here about the US Army officer career, and basically they found out that the career officers were the middle third. The top third jumped ship early, and the bottom third washed out.  The article was about retention challenges, and had an example of a really high flyer that had screamed up to a one star, with expectations that he'd eventually be at the top.  He pulled the plug, went to work for some kind of think tank, and was very quickly advising POTUS. They interviewed him, and he said something along the lines of he wanted to make an impact, and this allowed him to make a difference sooner. Probably let him avoid a lot of the flag officer politics and get a bigger paycheck at the same time, so made sense to me.  Can't remember what thread or anything it was in to put together a search, but this isn't a new problem.

 

[blacktriangle]

A few years ago someone posted an article here about the US Army officer career, and basically they found out that the career officers were the middle third. The top third jumped ship early, and the bottom third washed out.

This was similar to my experience during my career as an NCM. The best people I ever worked for or with generally moved on faster than their respective trades may have liked. Several became officers, others went SOF, and many released for civilian positions in Policing, Federal agencies etc.

That kind of goes back to my point that not everyone is interested in a long term career in the CAF, but that doesn't mean these are your slacker types. Also, the longer you have junior members rotting in things like PAT platoons or just sitting around probably doesn't motivate your best to stay.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yeah, you're right; have been the divO for a number of people moving on at the end of their contract and a lot of them were excellent.  I know some people were bent out of shape because we 'lost' them, but nothing wrong with someone coming in, kicking ass for a few years and moving on to something else.

We get a good worker for a while, they get good life skills and resume points, so it benefits everyone.

Probably not rocket science to say that high flyers are going to have more opportunities outside the CAF, so they are harder to retain. In a lot of cases, it's also a shift over to a defence contractor, and think they tend to go a bit further then normal, as it's not just a bunch of strangers doing abstract things to them. They also have an easier time calling us out on BS, so good to keep us honest.

 

[daftandbarmy]

They also have an easier time calling us out on BS, so good to keep us honest.

Yeah, about that, I'll let you know when that actually works

 

[FJAG]

Yeah, about that, I'll let you know when that actually works

:rofl:

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is a good idea IMHO:

The Army launches plan to give college credit for training soldiers are already doing

The move is part of a broader effort within Army education to find ways to recognize Army training as legitimate experience, applicable outside of the service. It’s an effort that brings enlisted education up to par with officer education, as some of those courses have been accredited since the 1970s.

It’s the “first time any NCO course will be accredited to a degree program,” Guyette said.


https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/06/12/the-army-launches-plan-to-give-college-credit-for-training-soldiers-are-already-doing/

 

[dapaterson]

Sounds suspiciously like the Canadian Forces Military Accreditation Program (CFMAP), which already existed when I went to work in the directorate responsible in 1998...

 

[dimsum]

Sounds suspiciously like the Canadian Forces Military Accreditation Program (CFMAP), which already existed when I went to work in the directorate responsible in 1998...

Certain schools (Athabasca comes to mind but I'm sure there are others; I think U of M as well) will also credit your CAF experience.

 

[dapaterson]

Certain schools (Athabasca comes to mind but I'm sure there are others; I think U of M as well) will also credit your CAF experience.

Take a look at the website below.  It identifies which programs will get you credit for training when you enter, and what your military training and experience can translate into for education and professional credit / accreditation.

https://caface-rfacace.forces.gc.ca/en/index

 

[MilEME09]

Take a look at the website below.  It identifies which programs will get you credit for training when you enter, and what your military training and experience can translate into for education and professional credit / accreditation.

https://caface-rfacace.forces.gc.ca/en/index

Looks like if your not an MP, Aircraft tech, or naval trade, you are mostly out of luck, When was the last time this program was updated? I know MRU calgary offers partial accreditation for project management for Sgt's and WO's

 

[PuckChaser]

Looks like if your not an MP, Aircraft tech, or naval trade, you are mostly out of luck, When was the last time this program was updated? I know MRU calgary offers partial accreditation for project management for Sgt's and WO's

Just your PLQ was 6 credit hours which is just under half a semester of courses (based on 120 credit hour degree requirement). Not a bad trade off.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just your PLQ was 6 credit hours which is just under half a semester of courses (based on 120 credit hour degree requirement). Not a bad trade off.

That's an excellent deal.

It's almost as if this should be a standard practise for everyone somehow, hardwired into the Pers/Adm processes.