• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Office Production Paths - CFR or Bust?

They tried that with CEOTP — and it failed, because almost no one was actually finishing a degree. The joke we CEOTPs had was “I promised to work on my degree, and the military promised me the time to do it — and we were both lieing”. The op tempo for junior officers just doesn’t lend itself to distance learning. And once you become a senior Captain, the job tempo can even increase. The few real actual quiet positions are cubicles occupied with Majs and LCols, who tend have a deputy they can delegate to if they’re drowned in schoolwork. Lts and Capts don‘t have that option.

You can’t easily fit a four year degree into the occasional few months of post-Latvia reduced op tempo, or in between frigate deployments. The advantage of ROTP and DEO is that education time is front loaded. But whatever model, the time has to fit in somewhere. One model could be enrolment for CEOTP/OCTP, then five years regimental service, then four years IBDP — that gets to a similar end state as ROTP, only with younger and more immature subbies, and older captains as undergrads — but what problem would actually be solved by 18 year old 2Lts and 23 year old freshmen?
My point is, that we are potentially missing a demographic that is not immediately interested (unable to attend?) in university that we should be tapping on a ”buy and try” basis. How we eventually see them get a degree (if we decide to keep them) at the end of contract is open to discussion.
 
Last edited:
My point is, that we are potentially missing a demographic that is not immediately interested (unable to attend?) in university that we should be tapping on a ”buy and try” basis. How we eventually see them get a degree (if we decide to keep them) at the end of contract is open to discussion.
Are we again making our recruiting problems worse by treating every applicant like they are the next potential CDS? Is there a need for recruits (both officers and ORs) that we know are likely to max out at the Captain/Corporal rank before they fulfill their TOS/release?

We could perhaps have a "deferred" ROTP program for those high flyers that the CAF would choose to keep on and move higher up the chain. They sign a new contract, complete their university education full time then continue their service.
 
Are we again making our recruiting problems worse by treating every applicant like they are the next potential CDS? Is there a need for recruits (both officers and ORs) that we know are likely to max out at the Captain/Corporal rank before they fulfill their TOS/release?

We could perhaps have a "deferred" ROTP program for those high flyers that the CAF would choose to keep on and move higher up the chain. They sign a new contract, complete their university education full time then continue their service.
That is precisely what I am saying.
 
I don't really understand the point of CEOTP, as it seems like we're saying that someone has to get a degree to have critical thinking and writing skills.

If they can join, get through DP1, and make it to the point where they are ranked for promotion without a degree, have they not already demonstrated critical thinking, verbal and written communication skills good enough for a seniour commissioned officer?

I get needed professional degrees where it's a prerequisite for specific occupations, but a blanket check in the box seems pretty arbitrary. Having said that, they are easy enough to get so it's not really any kind of discriminator anymore.

Also don't understand staff college for people that already have a Masters, as the military will happily fire people into jobs that would need the skills you would get at staff college well before going to staff college. Wish they would break out the military masters bit and the planning/PD into separate modules, and PLAR folks with a Masters through the first bit to save time.
 
Also don't understand staff college for people that already have a Masters, as the military will happily fire people into jobs that would need the skills you would get at staff college well before going to staff college. Wish they would break out the military masters bit and the planning/PD into separate modules, and PLAR folks with a Masters through the first bit to save time.

I have a MA, and confidently say that there is no way it would qualify me for senior command positions in anything the CAF does in a specific way.

What it does do though is give me a good, and objective, understanding of how to gather and synthesize data into a useable format for decision making.

Regardless, you'd still need a Staff College type of offering to bring people up to speed on how to run big organizations fighting big battles.
 
OCTP, fixed period of service, release. If they want to rejoin, let them use the VAC stipend to get a BA then return.
 
  • Insightful
Reactions: ueo
I have a MA, and confidently say that there is no way it would qualify me for senior command positions in anything the CAF does in a specific way.

What it does do though is give me a good, and objective, understanding of how to gather and synthesize data into a useable format for decision making.

Regardless, you'd still need a Staff College type of offering to bring people up to speed on how to run big organizations fighting big battles.
Yeah, now if only our Staff College did that…
 
I have a MA, and confidently say that there is no way it would qualify me for senior command positions in anything the CAF does in a specific way.

What it does do though is give me a good, and objective, understanding of how to gather and synthesize data into a useable format for decision making.

Regardless, you'd still need a Staff College type of offering to bring people up to speed on how to run big organizations fighting big battles.
Sure, but they lump both together, instead of splitting them into modules. I think my MASc gave me the same skill set you got from your MA, so getting another MA in Toronto before doing the second bit seems redundant.

My occupation can't even stream into any positions running organizations fighting big battles anyway, so again seems like an arbitrary check in the box, vice a useful year of PD.
 
The reports that fed into the 1997 report creating the degrees officer corps are interesting. They explain the desire for senior officers to have a broad based liberal arts education to enable the ability to work in unclear / ambiguous situations.

That, of course, has now been reduced to mere credentialism. The nadir was the Log Branch using education to exclude many applicants - and implicitly stating "Senior serving Logistician, you don't meet the entry standard".
 
I think if someone has gotten up to senior officer, they've demonstrated the ability to work through numerous unclear/ambiguous situations in the bureaucratic machine that is DND and the CAF! Just working through the various of layers orders and directives to figure out what you are actually supposed to do can be a treat sometimes.
 
The reports that fed into the 1997 report creating the degrees officer corps are interesting. They explain the desire for senior officers to have a broad based liberal arts education to enable the ability to work in unclear / ambiguous situations.

That, of course, has now been reduced to mere credentialism. The nadir was the Log Branch using education to exclude many applicants - and implicitly stating "Senior serving Logistician, you don't meet the entry standard".

I would have thought we’d want officers who could identify and resolve unclear/ ambiguous situations instead. ;)
 
If we were only trying to get officer recruits to the Capt rank, or even the Maj rank in some cases, then not having a Bachelors degree would be fine for those MOSIDs that don't have a hard degree requirement. The issue becomes trying to make individuals competitive after those ranks, when just being able to do your job well won't get you promoted any further. Those individuals will need to compete against their peers from MOSIDs who have not only Bachelors degrees, but many with Masters and more. And they need to be able to function in a staff environment where critical thinking, writing skills for persuasive arguments, project/programme management, etc. are day to day skills being employed. You can be a great operator and a great leader, but if you can't express yourself you don't have the same option as on civy street of hiring professionals to do that part of the job for you. And to be honest, there are very few jobs as an officer that are interesting enough, and pay well enough, to keep motivated Capts in past a certain point.
 
So you're saying as an added bonus that the surfeit of senior officers could also be reduced?
 
I spent 15 years in the ranks before I CFRed, making it to Sgt. I was 33 years old when I did it, so I still have a lot of legs left in my "second career."

I think like anything, it depends on the individual versus the collective. I met a lot of very switched on DEOs and ROTPs that had needed a little coaching, but were strong leaders, planners, and thinkers in their trade. I have also met quite a few CFRs that at literally in it for "Freedom Best 5" because they plateaued at MWO.

IMHO, forcing an Officer to serve first as an NCM is folly. No guarantee that there will be any experience or knowledge gained from the exerciae that couldn't be gained with a strong mentorship from a competent WO/SNCO.

What does need to be instilled in any leadership entry (DEO,ROTP, UTPNCM, CFRP) is the concept of servant-leadership; you're in command, and your troops will move heaven and earth to get your plan off the ground. Your job is to move heaven and earth to ensure they are well trained, well equipped, well disciplined, and well led. That is lacking in a lot of my sibling officers of every origin and rank level.

And in reference to CFR, I would only have Sgt/WOs eligible, with at least a minimum of 15 years left before CRA. Anything else can be a SRCP scenario.
 
What does need to be instilled in any leadership entry (DEO,ROTP, UTPNCM, CFRP) is the concept of servant-leadership; you're in command, and your troops will move heaven and earth to get your plan off the ground. Your job is to move heaven and earth to ensure they are well trained, well equipped, well disciplined, and well led. That is lacking in a lot of my sibling officers of every origin and rank level.
Can I get a Hallelujah?

The greatest compliment I ever received was from a relatively junior subordinate, after I left a command position, telling me "Sir, I think you made things better."
 
IMHO, forcing an Officer to serve first as an NCM is folly. No guarantee that there will be any experience or knowledge gained from the exerciae that couldn't be gained with a strong mentorship from a competent WO/SNCO.

As I recall, many 'Continental' armies draw most of their Officers from the ranks.

Admittedly the raw material is much higher quality all round because the conscription system pulls in a much larger, and demographically broader, population to start with than an all volunteer force but Norway, for example, will promote promising Sergeants (3 to 6 years to Sergeant I believe) directly to 2Lt, and then pretty quickly to Lt after that.

Incidentally, that's pretty much how we did it too in WW2.
 
Back
Top