The utility of three military colleges, funded undergrad degrees; Officer trg & the need for a degre

[Good2Golf]

@ Good2Golf
Thanks. Very clearly stated and I can't argue anything you said. But...

any insight on the question I asked? 

I don't know, but I would not anticipate any significant effects to the ROTP until a couple of years further down the road.

Cheers
G2G

 

[wannabe SF member]

shared with the usual caveats

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3528538#.T4Re6RZ1RFI.facebook

This came out in the Kingston Whig today, according to the article the principal would also be affected by the cuts which does seem like a strange move.

On a lighter note, there's a lot of OCdts and teachers going around campus with an air of indignation and lamenting the end of the officer corp as we know it, pretty entertaining stuff.

 

[Strike]

I would be curious in seeing from what areas these staff are from.

RMC has expanded quite a bit in its selection of programs from when I went to school, where we were in either science/eng or arts for the first 2 years and then branched out in third year.  Now students specify much sooner and even have the option of taking credits in the summer.  There are also several more programs available.  This has to mean that in the past 15 years the staff has expanded accordingly.

Perhaps the school should go back to where it was, providing fewer programs with possibly better quality.

 

[Maxadia]

So to play devil's advocate here....if several members here think that it's not worthwhile to require degrees for all officers, is there any training outside of CF courses that you would consider to be worthwhile for officers to pursue, if they have the time to do so?  Or do you consider that to be  complete waste of time, and everything needed is contained in those CF courses? 

Personal interest in this one....I have the opportunity to pursue further education if I choose, that would be heavily subsidized by my employer.  I also am lucky to the extreme that I can pretty much pick and choose whatever I'd like to do for further education, and tailor it to my own tastes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The issue is not that education, especially higher education, is anything but good; the issue is that the profession of arms has its own, unique body of knowledge that is not taught at a university. A university degree might lay a good foundation but the knowledge is available only within the military. We also 'teach' in an old fashioned way: through a mix of theory and apprenticeship of sorts, junior, would-be bridge watch keepers are taught their craft by seasoned officers; beginner pilots are trained by flight instructors as they move through a carefully crafted programme of flying schools and operational training units before they get to an operational squadron; in the army junior officers are tutored by NCOs, who are experts in most fields - there is nothing in any university programme about working through fear and discomfort, nothing about calculating life and death risks, nothing about leading, nothing about sacrificing ...

The more education, for all ranks, the better, but the profession of arms is like the law, medicine and, in most respects, the priesthood: we are a self-governing body with our own, special standards and our own unique body of knowledge; like the priesthood we have a vocation - we must have because we appear to have taken a vow of poverty!  :camo:

 

[dapaterson]

The more education, for all ranks, the better, but the profession of arms is like the law, medicine and, in most respects, the priesthood: we are a self-governing body with our own, special standards and our own unique body of knowledge; like the priesthood we have a vocation - we must have because we appear to have taken a vow of poverty! :camo:

To the contrary. A mid-level CF officer (Major GSO) will pull in a six figure salary once he or she has a single year in rank.  A corporal (Basic) with no spec pay draws $55K.  Hardly poverty.  Indeed, salaries well above Canada's average wages.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You're right, of course, but I retired when only a few, very long in the tooth colonels approached six figures. CWOs and most majors earned about $60-65K.

 

[jeffb]

The issue is not that education, especially higher education, is anything but good; the issue is that the profession of arms has its own, unique body of knowledge that is not taught at a university.

And that is why officers are required to complete almost a year (depending on the trade) worth of training before being posted to a working unit where they are able to start learning all over again from the SNCO's and more experienced officers around them. Honestly, I at a bit of a loss here as to what the argument even is anymore. I fully accept that having a degree will not make or break an officer but I can't see how it is a bad thing as a gateway to begin their apprenticeship training.

 

[a_majoor]

Wading in here (and ready to be chased out of the water!)

The common element seems to be that formal University education may not be appropriate for the needs of a junior officer, rather a system of apprenticeship, OJT and technical training at appropriate times in the officer's career is more appropriate and cost effective. I heartily agree, but also would suggest that having "outside" knowledge provides a broader perspective and perhaps the ability to see a problem in a new and unexpected way. The other potential benefit is "intuition" is thought to be the mind's ability to find matching patterns in previous experiences, so having a broad range of experiences not limited to TTP's and staff work will give the person a greater ability to use intuition to rapidly find solutions to out of the box problems.

Now this is hard to quantify. Some degrees, like the plethora of "victims studies", probably induce a pretty rigid worldview that does not provide the broadened perspective we might like. Other degrees, like 13th century French Poetry (OK, I invented that degree), might provide amusing insights, but not particularly useful ones. Would basket weaving be useful? Perhaps a holder of that degree would have a metric in determining how much time and effort is needed by the locals in hand crafting tools and equipment needed to survive in places like the Sudan or rural Afghanistan. Broader degrees like History would allow the astute degree holder to dip into his accumulated knowledge and perhaps find a similar situation, and what worked or did not work then. Of course, lots of degree holders are not very astute or have forgotten most of what they learned.

Now for the other issue of doing four years of paid service with very limited exposure to troops or operational experience could be remedied by adopting on line learning like the Khan Academy or MITx for many courses, allowing the candidate to learn on their own time, and persue whatever interests please them while they are undergoing their apprenticeship/OJT/technical training. So long as they pass some sort of qualifying exam each term, they can demonstrate they are indeed getting a higher education. We already expect them to do OPME's on their own time, this is just an extension of the idea.

The only "downside" to 100% on line learning is for candidates who wish to (or need to) study the STEM disciplines; there you need "brick and mortar" schools to provide lab spaces and collaboration on larger projects. RMC started as an engineering school, making it a STEM academy for the military would bring it back to its roots.

 

[dstevens]

I currently have a degree myself, BScN which means I'm a RN.

For the sake of argument can we please identify degrees before talking about them, from personal experience along with the support of my peers, many degrees are simply a piece of paper that hold little merit. Many of you gentlemen  and women aged 35+, degree or no degree, may be uninformed as the how severe the transformation a degree has become compared to when you were of "university age", though I recognize at any time you can enroll in University.  Back in the 70s and 80s, Bachelor degrees actually carried their weight.

I would like to address the readers of this thread that there are still meaningful degrees out there, Math, Physics, Engineering and some biology degrees, will lead to meaningful and expected employment upon graduation. I however argue that yes, many Bachelor Degrees have lost their merit due to current and predicted continuance market saturation of these degrees. Ex. English, Sociology, Kinesiology, Psychology, Biology etc.

The big misconception, in my view and opinion, in this thread is that people are assuming degrees cause an individual to excel.
This is not true; there is a correlation between a degree and demonstrated excellence, allowing for a person to assume the individual is qualified.

Scientific inquiry wholeheartedly accepts and proves that correlation does not prove causation. There is no sound reason for arguing this, despite many writers in this thread trying to do so. 

      Continuing on with the point, the cuts to RMC are concerning, however I feel that we will not be losing its celebrated tradition of military officer recruits as it is safe to say it isn't going anywhere. We do need to trim the fat, and I argue that civilian degrees should not be offered at a military institution. We talk of officers with unrelated degrees to Military Occupations, why don't we make our Officer Cadets at the RMC earn a Military Degree, from a military institution. This would improve the quality of our officers and cement their confidence in relation to a military lifestyle. The "Leading from the front" ideology comes to mind.  The sound of an officer cadet studying Military strategy or Leadership Psychology alone could improve the confidence of some of our NCMs in CF officers. Granted, there is not much merit for a military degree in a Civvy situation, but after putting 4 years in at a military institution it may be say to assume that they are committed to a military lifestyle; the degree would be free anyways. Even if you only put 10 years in you are not at disadvantage, you are no better off than any first year university student, if anything you have a leg up as you haves should have a nest egg saved from you military Pay Cheques.

I'm looking forward to your continued replies and discussion on the topic, thank you for posting,

Dstevens.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

      Continuing on with the point, the cuts to RMC are concerning, however I feel that we will not be losing its celebrated tradition of military officer recruits as it is safe to say it isn't going anywhere. We do need to trim the fat, and I argue that civilian degrees should not be offered at a military institution. We talk of officers with unrelated degrees to Military Occupations, why don't we make our Officer Cadets at the RMC earn a Military Degree, from a military institution. This would improve the quality of our officers and cement their confidence in relation to a military lifestyle. The "Leading from the front" ideology comes to mind.  The sound of an officer cadet studying Military strategy or Leadership Psychology alone could improve the confidence of some of our NCMs in CF officers. Granted, there is not much merit for a military degree in a Civvy situation, but after putting 4 years in at a military institution it may be say to assume that they are committed to a military lifestyle

I actually really like this idea.  If RMC were to focus solely on military related degree programs, such as war studies (Infantry, arty, armour, etc), engineering (engineers), and Business (logistics) as well as other degrees REQUIRED by the CF, it would be a lot easier to quantify.  It would be a lot more bang for your buck if the young INF/Arty/Armour officer learned tactics, history of warfare, military administration and procedures (focussed english/french), their second language, etc, and entered the CF with the fundamentals of the officer profession, than used their real world training to develop the technical skills only the day to day can provide.  Programs would be needed for MARS, pilots, etc, but that could be integrated into much the same stream, with some individual nuances.

That said, if this were to pass, I would be open to the option of granting CFRs significant credits towards their own degrees, or waving the requirement for a degree for them altogether... at that point, they have proven the leadership and techical/institutional ability, and a degree would simply be a piece of paper.

I would see DEO hired for specific trades based on their degree (Dental, med, business, etc) or a general degree for combat arms or other similar trades.

Finally, I do not believe that myself or my parents need to foot the bill for a young OCdt to get a degree that will help him once he leaves the CF.  If they want to join, they can join.  If they dont want to join because it wont get them into a good civie job, than they can pay for it themselves.

 

[dapaterson]

I currently have a degree myself, BScN which means I'm a RN.

Well, correlation does not imply causation.  A BScN is a degree; RN is a professional designation. While the new standard for entry into practice as an RN is a nursing degree (and some schools, such as McGill, offer a Masters in nursing that is intended for individuals already holding another degree); merely possessing a BScN does not make one an RN. There are professional exams prior to admission to practice, as well as ongoing requirements for licensure.

So it is not a logical argument to say I have a BScN and therefore I am an RN.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no degree programme that prepares one to be a ship's captain, a combat arms battalion or regimental commander or CO of an RCAF fighter squadron. We want educated, thoughtful, mature, reliable men and women with a whole hockey sock full of desirable attributes to fill those jobs ~ a university, military or civilian provides, part of the foundation. Most of the skills and knowledge that will fit an officer for combat command will, however, come from within the CF and most of that knowledge will come from informal learning, not from courses.

What's a good degree for an infantry battalion commander or a ship's captain? Philosophy? History, or Economics? Engineering? MGen Vance holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Military and Strategic Studies from Royal Roads Military College, and a Master of Arts Degree in War Studies from RMC; VAdm Donaldson holds a Bachelors Degree in Political Science and Economics from Carleton University in Ottawa, and a Masters Degree in International Relations and Maritime Strategic Studies from Dalhousie University in Halifax; MGen Day has a BA (with distinction) in Political Studies and History from the University of Manitoba and a Masters in War Studies from RMCC; RAdm Greenwood has a BSc in Physics and Oceanography from Royal Roads Military College and an MA in International Relations from King's College London; and LGen Lawson has a Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Royal Military College and earned a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from RMC and served as a professor there. In short there is no degree programme for combat commanders.

I worry about the idea of a "military" degree programme; we have a small army and, traditionally, the opinion, informed or not, of the senior officer present tends to trump doctrine and logic ~ institutionalizing it strikes me as being a less than desirable course of action.

 

[mba2011]

I actually really like this idea.  If RMC were to focus solely on military related degree programs, such as war studies (Infantry, arty, armour, etc), engineering (engineers), and Business (logistics) as well as other degrees REQUIRED by the CF, it would be a lot easier to quantify.  It would be a lot more bang for your buck if the young INF/Arty/Armour officer learned tactics, history of warfare, military administration and procedures (focussed english/french), their second language, etc, and entered the CF with the fundamentals of the officer profession, than used their real world training to develop the technical skills only the day to day can provide.  Programs would be needed for MARS, pilots, etc, but that could be integrated into much the same stream, with some individual nuances.

That said, if this were to pass, I would be open to the option of granting CFRs significant credits towards their own degrees, or waving the requirement for a degree for them altogether... at that point, they have proven the leadership and techical/institutional ability, and a degree would simply be a piece of paper.

I would see DEO hired for specific trades based on their degree (Dental, med, business, etc) or a general degree for combat arms or other similar trades.

Finally, I do not believe that myself or my parents need to foot the bill for a young OCdt to get a degree that will help him once he leaves the CF.  If they want to join, they can join.  If they dont want to join because it wont get them into a good civie job, than they can pay for it themselves.

With all due respect Bird Gunner, there are benefits to the program (as I posted earlier). 

In regards to the highlighted segment, that doesn't make sense. There aren't that many of us (us, as in young OCdts) who enrolled so that we can get a better civi job. We went through all the same screening you did, including questions in our interviews about why we wanted to be in the CF. I have no inclination as to if or when I will leave the Forces. My contract for ROTP is up over a decade from now so enrolling in the Forces to get a better job in 13 years really isn't logical. Furthermore I will be using my degree to to further myself in the civi world but in the CF world. I intend on working as hard as I  can to do my job to the best of my abilities, which will help the CF in some way (hopefully, but I don't want to come across as egotistical).

As for tax payers paying for me to get a better job,I am a tax payer to. We, as CF members, all take benefits from tax dollars.

We all make our living off tax money and we all pay taxes, so saying "you and your parents shouldn't have to foot the bill" can apply to virtually any member with any trade in any role in any unit, not just the programs we are discussing. Giving that as a reason for RMC/ROTP to be restructured or eliminated doesn't make any sense.

Again, just my opinion and my $0.02

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

To pick up Infanteer's point earlier in the thread, if we wish to claim that officers are professionals a la Huntington then we need some level of education beyond high school. While a degree may not help a Troop Leader with his estimate of the situation, it does prepare him for later positions of institutional leadership. Requiring that all officers either enter with a degree or be part of a degree program gives some assurance that they will succeed in Masters and higher level education as they progress.  If we leave it until later in their careers it can hard to squeeze it all in. The degree requirement also serves as a useful filter without being an insurmountable obstacle.

I question, however, the desire to focus on "military" degrees. These can certainly be useful and interesting, but any degree program can suffice at imparting critical thinking and research skills. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Furthermore I will be using my degree to to further myself in the civi world but in the CF world. I intend on working as hard as I  can to do my job to the best of my abilities, which will help the CF in some way (hopefully, but I don't want to come across as egotistical).

As for tax payers paying for me to get a better job,I am a tax payer to. We, as CF members, all take benefits from tax dollars.

We all make our living off tax money and we all pay taxes, so saying "you and your parents shouldn't have to foot the bill" can apply to virtually any member with any trade in any role in any unit, not just the programs we are discussing. Giving that as a reason for RMC/ROTP to be restructured or eliminated doesn't make any sense.

Fair enough.  Consider that comment striken from the record. 

 

[formerguard]

Mostly related to the topic at hand (in that it addresses higher education in the military), the following article presents several interesting considerations 'from the top' (Gen. Petraeus' perspective) on the benefit of a degreed (well, higher-degreed) officer corps, as well as providing some counterarguments to those who might be pushing for a MilCol- or military-themed degree only solution.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=290

 

[jwtg]

. . . There aren't that many of us (us, as in young OCdts) who enrolled so that we can get a better civi job. We went through all the same screening you did, including questions in our interviews about why we wanted to be in the CF. I have no inclination as to if or when I will leave the Forces. My contract for ROTP is up over a decade from now so enrolling in the Forces to get a better job in 13 years really isn't logical. Furthermore I will be using my degree to to further myself in the civi world but in the CF world. I intend on working as hard as I  can to do my job to the best of my abilities, which will help the CF in some way (hopefully, but I don't want to come across as egotistical).

In a perfect world that would be true, but in this imperfect world your statement is probably only partially true and certainly unproven.  Your experience obviously suggests that the majority of ROTP cadets plan on a long-term career in the CF; my experience suggests that many people are in for the degree and guaranteed job, which will give them valuable experience, which they can take into the Civi world after their obligatory service or VIE.  Who's to say what an 18-20 year old applicant is going to do 10 years down the road when they've finished their education and obligatory service, no matter what their intentions had been originally?  Certainly not me.

But I don't think you can assume that what you claim is true.  There are definitely applicants are interested in the ROTP because it gets them a degree, a job, and a shot at something else later on.

I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.

 

[mba2011]

In a perfect world that would be true, but in this imperfect world your statement is probably only partially true and certainly unproven.  Your experience obviously suggests that the majority of ROTP cadets plan on a long-term career in the CF; my experience suggests that many people are in for the degree and guaranteed job, which will give them valuable experience, which they can take into the Civi world after their obligatory service or VIE.  Who's to say what an 18-20 year old applicant is going to do 10 years down the road when they've finished their education and obligatory service, no matter what their intentions had been originally?  Certainly not me.

But I don't think you can assume that what you claim is true.  There are definitely applicants are interested in the ROTP because it gets them a degree, a job, and a shot at something else later on.

I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.

It really is just my opinion. You raise a valid point, it is unproven. But most of us, if we are aiming for a particular civilian job, don't spend the 10+ years in the CF just for that. It is very true that some have done that, but of the OCdts and former OCdts I know, I don't know of any who are in the CF and ROTP to build their resume.  There probably are some that have considered it, or actually are in for that reason, but it seems like they are few and far between.

Having 10+ years in the CF as an officer and a degree in whatever to boot, does look great on a resume. But once we finish our degree, obligatory service and VIE, we've put a lot of time in. Its the same as the MCpl or Sgt with 10+ years in who VR's. The CF did spend a lot of money and effort training him, but with 10+ years in, did he not pay it back with time in?

I do one hundred percent agree with you  that there has been and are currently some OCdts who are in for the benefits that are applicable in the civi world, but I really don't think it is all that many.

 

[yoman]

I would be interested to see numbers, if they existed, showing the retention rate of ROTP produced officers after their obligatory service or VIE, to find out where 'most' people fit.

I remember listening to a presentation about this very topic while at the college. From what I remember (which granted, might be wrong) I believe the retention was somewhere around the 50% mark after the completion of the VIE. I agree that it would be interesting to see published statistics regarding this topic.