What happened to Recruiting Standards?

[kcdist]

A question for the recruiters - What the heck happened to recruiting standard?

My child (trying to be as ambiguous as possible so as not to identify) has now been in the CF for about five months. When s/he first suggested an interest in the CF, I was thrilled. I explained in great detail how tough the process was, including:

1. Hour long grueling initial interview;
2. The ESSAY;
3. The requirement for 3 strong personal references;
4. The week long Combat Arms Officer Selection Board (CAOS);
5. The demands of the physical testing during CAOS;
6. The extremely grueling board interview during CAOS; and
7. The detailed Medical, including the one of the most uncomfortable procedures in my life that included a glove, a finger and Vaseline.

I advised that since I joined, standards had probably tightened, due to all the post 9/11 action. We spent countless hours in mock interviews,  and s/he hit the gym and the track like never before.

Imagine my shock when the process didn't include any of the above points. The interview lasted no more than 10 minutes, and was basically
a confirmation of the file. The medical was very brief, and was not conducted by a Doctor. There was no physical testing. Unbelievably, with all that we now know about PTSD/Suicides, there was no physiological testing. There was no requirement for character references. There was no handwritten essay to prove s/he possessed basic writing and penmanship skills. There was no week long vetting process....

I would suggest the process to be hired as a Roughneck is more taxing than the process for a Combat Arms Officer. It seems all the eggs have been placed in the school transcript and CFAT test.

Predictably, her/his Basic Officer course in St. Jean was a joke. Kids showing up that couldn't complete a single push-up or pull-up. Mental melt downs and frequent crying. Kids unable to complete a 5km march. When s/he was disillusioned during a phone call, I advised to stick with it....promised that it would get tougher and more challenging. It didn't.

Then, shockingly, everyone passed! Unless they purposely quit, everyone continued on to their subsidized university program....even the kids that had to get fitted for special uniforms because they were too fat!!!! And the fatties.....ugh. What happened to the BMI standard? Some of the pictures I saw looked like a fat kids summer camp.

In the end, I hope that Phase Training (or Development Level?!? whatever) will weed out the weak and the mentally unfit, but I'm not holding my breath.

Is the CF that desperate for Officers to have (virtually) non-existent recruiting standards? At what point (if at all) is there a critical look at the candidate and all they have to offer? And how can that even be done if there is no testing, physical or practical, to determine if they possess the basic goods to lead soldiers? As we all know, some basic skills just can't be taught.

Anyhow.... not expecting any answers. Just wanted to register my disgust as a former member and as a Taxpayer. Be Better.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can't answer most of this, but I can tell you the requirement for completing a PT test as part of recruiting was done away with (for Reg Force applicant...Reserve Force applicants must still complete it) around the summer/fall of 2006.  BMI was done away with as a 'single predictor of fitness' years ago, and IMO, rightfully so.  I knew guys who were in perfect shape, spent many hours at the gym and "their BMI" was too high.  BMI is still used today, but not for all trades.  It is one factor assessed during aircrew medicals, for certain, but also combined with other things.

The Basic Military Officer Qualification at St-Jean also has OCts from all trades, not just Combat Arms. 

I've been out of the green DEU over a decade, so haven't had eyes on the CAP (Common Army Phase) and/or other Jnr Officer coursing at CTC for some time, but maybe someone who is involved in that training in Gagetown/Pet/Wainwright can speak to the current standards and hardships our Officer Corps encounter once they leave the soft spaces of CFLRS.

 

[RocketRichard]

I can't answer most of this, but I can tell you the requirement for completing a PT test as part of recruiting was done away with (for Reg Force applicant...Reserve Force applicants must still complete it) around the summer/fall of 2006.  BMI was done away with as a 'single predictor of fitness' years ago, and IMO, rightfully so.  I knew guys who were in perfect shape, spent many hours at the gym and "their BMI" was too high.  BMI is still used today, but not for all trades.  It is one factor assessed during aircrew medicals, for certain, but also combined with other things.

The Basic Military Officer Qualification at St-Jean also has OCts from all trades, not just Combat Arms. 

I've been out of the green DEU over a decade, so haven't had eyes on the CAP (Common Army Phase) and/or other Jnr Officer coursing at CTC for some time, but maybe someone who is involved in that training in Gagetown/Pet/Wainwright can speak to the current standards and hardships our Officer Corps encounter once they leave the soft spaces of CFLRS.

Can confirm that BMOQA/CAP mostly sort outs some of the fitness and ‘fit to lead’ issues. There appears to be no issue with failing and/or ‘r ecoursing’candidates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lumber]

Maybe they realized that your ability to ruck march and do push ups doesn't translate to an ability to lead troops?

 

[RCDtpr]

Maybe they realized that your ability to ruck march and do push ups doesn't translate to an ability to lead troops?

If you think troops don’t notice when their officer is not physically fit, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Lumber]

If you think troops don’t notice when their officer is not physically fit, you are sadly mistaken.

You're treating it like black and white. There's unfit, there's "two a days and iron mans", and then there's all the in between of just "regular fit" and able to do their job. I wasn't implying combat arms officers don't need to by physically fit, I'm saying they don't need to be hard as nails and fit as f*** to be able to do their jobs.

I will acknowledge that I'm not in the army and I don't have a good bead on the culture; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you're a Officer, and you are charged with the effective tactical employment of lethal force , you should be able to inspire your troops a lot more ways than how fit you are. If you can't, take a look in the mirror.

Captain Sobel was fit.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Agree with the above points, but will add "you can't lead from the rear" is also valid.

Is there a problem currently with the PT levels of Combat Arms Officers at the Troop/Platoon --> Sqn/Coy level? 

Loved the Capt Sobel finisher.  ;D

 

[mariomike]

I advised that since I joined, standards had probably tightened, due to all the post 9/11 action.

Standards were a concern prior to, and post, 9/11,

Whither Our Warriors-The Lowering of Standards
https://army.ca/forums/threads/2228.0.html
3 pages.

 

[kcdist]

You're treating it like black and white. There's unfit, there's "two a days and iron mans", and then there's all the in between of just "regular fit" and able to do their job. I wasn't implying combat arms officers don't need to by physically fit, I'm saying they don't need to be hard as nails and fit as f*** to be able to do their jobs.

I will acknowledge that I'm not in the army and I don't have a good bead on the culture; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you're a Officer, and you are charged with the effective tactical employment of lethal force , you should be able to inspire your troops a lot more ways than how fit you are. If you can't, take a look in the mirror.

Captain Sobel was fit.

Egads! There's Ironman/JTF levels of fitness, and there's a basic level of fitness that every member in uniform should possess, regardless of occupation.

If your goal is to lead soldiers/sailors/airpeople, and you arrive for your basic training course unable to complete one single push-up, or complete a 5km nature walk without crying, IMO, there is hardly a better indicator that you are unfit for consideration for that honour. You have failed to prepare, mentally and physically, on a most basic level.

I believe (hope!) that these folks will eventually be weeded out, but at what cost? Should it not be the role of the Recruiting System to vet those that appear wholly unsuited for military service? If you're so fat that you're a candidate for Level 2 Diabetes at 18 years old, shouldn't that be a warning flag? I understand the shortcoming of using the BMI standard, but all that did was got the conversation started. Further testing determined if the high reading was muscle or fat.

As a business owner that routinely transfers obscenely high dollar amounts to the Receiver General of Canada on a quarterly basis, I want to know that my contributions to the nation are wisely spent. To observe the military recruit large amounts of folks that are destined to wash-out, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars each, isn't my idea of money wisely spent.

A little more vetting would likely save both the CF and the potential officers plenty of grief.

PS - And the fact that no one failed the 6 week course isn't a feather in the cap of the recruiting system...it seems to be a failure in the system. When I joined in the 80's, despite a far tougher recruiting standard, we had a 40% failure rate in Chilliwack.

Much weaker standards and a zero failure rate? Yikes...... I cringe at what might be the ultimate outcome.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'll counter with:

- Afghanistan.  The Cdn Army (not only, but primarily) conducted operations.  The army wasn't incapable of doing the work for the years we had boots on the ground.

- RCN currently has multiple vessels sailing operationally well away from Canadian waters.

- RCAF.  None of our aircraft fly without a Pilot (CF18, as example), many more of them are operated by crews of Commissioned and Non-Commissioned air and flight crew.  Mali is currently ongoing with the folks from the TacHel fleet.

I know what you mean in the 'times have changed!' aspect...but we're still carrying out operations worldwide.

Back in 2006, the CAF Snr Leadership decided that too many potential good Officer and NCM recruits were being denied because they weren't in good enough shape to pass the CF PT test, or something along that line.  Snr Command assessed the risk, accepted the risk, mitigations were put in place and we've carried on for 12 years now, achieving the things in the Cdn Army, RCN and RCAF I've mentioned above.

Maybe if you go to a grade parade at the Infantry School, etc and see the Officers that come out of that establishment, you'll feel better about the money transfer to the RG.  Or visit a HMCS or any of the operational Squadrons in the RCAF.

Basic level of fitness currently = FORCE test.

:2c:

 

[RCDtpr]

You're treating it like black and white. There's unfit, there's "two a days and iron mans", and then there's all the in between of just "regular fit" and able to do their job. I wasn't implying combat arms officers don't need to by physically fit, I'm saying they don't need to be hard as nails and fit as f*** to be able to do their jobs.

I will acknowledge that I'm not in the army and I don't have a good bead on the culture; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you're a Officer, and you are charged with the effective tactical employment of lethal force , you should be able to inspire your troops a lot more ways than how fit you are. If you can't, take a look in the mirror.

Captain Sobel was fit.

When it comes to the combat arms, culture is a HUGE part of it, which you have admitted you aren’t versed in.  The reality of a combat arms regiment, battalion, company, platoon etc. is that it is very much an “alpha (fe)male” world there and weakness or perceived weakness is usually pounced on due to the personality types of a large amount of its members.

A young officer who comes in in their early 20s and isn’t in above average shape likely won’t have the confidence of the people under them for quite a while (if ever).  I don’t care what someone’s leadership style is......if you’re young, in the prime years of your physical abilities, and don’t have the self discipline to maintain a high level of fitness (knowing that fitness is a massive part of the job) then you will never inspire me, or many others.  Is that fair?  Probably not.....but if I’m expected to maintain a level of fitness by higher ups, then my officer best be at least on par with me.

As to your Sobel reference.....I’m not saying physical fitness equates to leadership skills or competence.  I’ve worked for total idiots who were JTF level fit.  I’ve also worked for idiots who were horribly out of shape and if I had to choose.......I’d pick the fit idiot.

Back on topic of the recruiting issue.  What concerns me most is that CAF, by lowering the standards to basically nothing, is teaching this new generation of officers and soldiers that it’s ok to have no self accountability etc. which in my opinion is dangerous.

 

[kcdist]

Physical Fitness aside, my child might have been really book smart, but also a highly functioning kid with Autism. There's no way the 10 minute chat with the recruiting officer would have been able to determine that.... However, the 5 Officer board interview would have likely figured that out in a hurry.

Additionally, my kid might not have the confidence to order a burger from McDonalds, however, an afternoon of basic leadership task exercises would have been able to easily determine if the basic building blocks of leadership existed.

A sociopath likely would have a difficult time procuring 3 solid character references....especially if they all knew about that time last year she forced Billy to do something he really didn't want to do..... Why eliminate this basic feature of almost any junior level executive job application?

I'm not suggesting the final product of trained Officers is not as good as its always been - and I hope to heck that it is - by why go the expense of recruiting folks clearly unsuitable for military service, only to have them eventually fail out (if we're fortunate).

And as I mentioned previously, especially with the rash of suicides experienced at RMC and throughout the Forces, why isn't there some basic physiological evaluations like is found in any Police Service recruitment process?

I'm not going to betray my child's experiences, but, without exaggeration, there are likely 15+% of her/his peers that wouldn't have been offered the chance to wear the uniform in my day.... Among other points, there appears to be far too many 'emotional' issues when the training has yet to ramp up to anything approaching difficult.

 

[BDTyre]

It's like this during BMQ as well...instructors have to do everything possible to NOT fail a candidate. The last one I staffed we definitely had a number of candidates that became emotional (and I'm not just referring to crying) at simple things, or being called out for something. Lots of extra time was spent with more than one candidate outside of course days.

 

[Xylric]

When I was at Sheridan, the general thought of the professors was that if someone is at risk of failing the course, it was less likely because the student could not grasp the material, and more that the professors had failed to teach that student effectively. To a point, this is likely true, but the reality is the hardest person to teach anything is someone who has no desire to learn - either because they dislike/distrust you, don't care for the subject, or any number of other factors.

That being said, in my experience as a tutor (to students with a surprising variety of conditions which make learning in a traditional classroom a challenge) if you can find a way that works to teach something that your student was convinced was beyond their ability, they're absolutely going to be motivated beyond a level than those who can pick things up easily are ever likely to experience.

Passionate and motivated pupils tend to boost the performance of an entire class, as natural competition tends to result. I don't know enough about the particular differences in military instruction and standard academics to be sure that this remains a constant, but I wouldn't be surprised - the neuroscience of learning is not that flexible. So wouldn't successfully salvaging a candidate serve to motive the entire class?

 

[cld617]

When I joined in the 80's, despite a far tougher recruiting standard, we had a 40% failure rate in Chilliwack.

Failure in and of itself isn't indicative of a successful screening process unless you look at why people are failing.

The CF is also presently dealing with cleansing poor attitudes and behaviors that were once found to be acceptable in past generations of mbrs. So while I can agree the physical fitness of current recruits may be lacking, this attitude that yesteryear was better is nonsense.

 

[Remius]

recruiting became very bloated and took forever.  Sometimes three years in some cases. 

Good candidates were turned off.

When I joined in the 90s there was no PT test at all.  But the interview took over an hour. 

Later, after 911, security became an issue so screenings took forever.

Express step test was introduced but it wasn't really a good indicator of success on course.

So do we want a fast efficient recruiting system that takes forever to process a person or do we want a fast system that let's the training system weed out the person. 

For years it was about the length of time it took to get someone processed, now it's the quality.  pick one or the other but be prepared to deal with the fall out of one or the other.

You can lament the way things were done in the past but that does not equate better.

Despite the need for boots on the ground, we are more and more going to need the fat computer guy to keep our cyber world safe.  No amount of ruck sack marches or 10K runs is going to help with that.  Sad to say but if we want those types of people, standards have to adapt.

 

[PuckChaser]

A PT test isnt the reason why the recruiting system slowed down. Inefficient processes and under manning in recruiting HQs is why. They even out sourced security clearances to make it go faster, and the process is still incredibly long. Not to mention that St. Jean has built a little kingdom so that to teach a BMQ you have to do their speciality course, reducing availability of CFTPO instructors who would increase recruit volumes.

 

[kcdist]

So do we want a fast efficient recruiting system that takes forever to process a person or do we want a fast system that let's the training system weed out the person. 

Would it be too much to expect both? My start to finish process, including a week's paid vacation in Gagetown, took 14 weeks from application to acceptance. My point is that it is vastly more cost and resource efficient to weed out the unsuitable application during the *application* process. One would think that with the advent of electronic file sharing technology, the process would become more efficient rather than less so.

 

[Remius]

A PT test isnt the reason why the recruiting system slowed down. Inefficient processes and under manning in recruiting HQs is why. They even out sourced security clearances to make it go faster, and the process is still incredibly long. Not to mention that St. Jean has built a little kingdom so that to teach a BMQ you have to do their speciality course, reducing availability of CFTPO instructors who would increase recruit volumes.

It did actually though.  PT tests were all over the map.  When they were back ended, people would fail and be given a time frame to come back and try again.  The system wasted time and energy doing aptitude test, medical interview only to have someone fail the pt test and push back again to allow them to try and pass but then at times come back because docs needed updating or security interviews redone thus clogging the system. 

When they were front ended, if people failed we might never see them again despite them, being good candidates for specific trades in distress.  Plus they were paid for so money lost. 

it wasn't just that but it was part of it.  moving to electronic testing limited how many applicants you could process to tweh amount of stations you had versus having 50-60 people at a drill hall writing it instead.  etc etc

 

[Remius]

Would it be too much to expect both? My start to finish process, including a week's paid vacation in Gagetown, took 14 weeks from application to acceptance. My point is that it is vastly more cost and resource efficient to weed out the unsuitable application during the *application* process. One would think that with the advent of electronic file sharing technology, the process would become more efficient rather than less so.

Yes it is.  Society is proof of that.  And it isn't just PT.  being away from home, personal devices basically are now appendages to bodies etc etc.