I dislike RMC

[Humphrey Bogart]

It's almost like the continued operation of RMC has an impact on the entire CAF, and thus everyone has very reasonable grounds to be voicing their opinions on whether or not the place should keep going. RMC isn't a sacred cow; it has real world impacts and thus any criticism of it is completely legitimate.

Frankly, if your assessment of the actual mission of RMC is accurate, then it just seems to me like that in and of itself is a pretty good reason for the CAF to stop funding it. The CAF should not in the business of spending boat-loads of money providing free education to be primary used elsewhere. The federal and provincial governments provide plenty of funding for general education programs. The CAF needs to be focusing its efforts on things that actually help us accomplish our mission.

Here are some counterpoints for you:

"The CAF shouldn't be spending boatloads of money on free education to be primarily used elsewhere"

Firstly this statement is factually incorrect. For every month of education that is subsidized, the CAF receives 2 months of obligatory service. So the CAF is getting a 2 for 1 deal and it's written right in to QR&Os. The education isn't free, it must be paid back, sometimes with blood.

Secondly, the CAF spends boatloads of money on all sorts of things. It spends $$$millions of dollars every year on training people to do things like fly planes, operate equipment, etc.

Many of these people do it for a few years and then they leave and the CAF loses the experience. The real lie the long service membership of the Regular Force tells itself is that everyone who signs up for the CAF is going to stay for 35 years.

And frankly, I'm unconvinced that RMC does that better than simply focusing on DEO enrollment would do, or shoring up any gap that might cause with the far more affordable option of Civvie U ROTP.

Another fallacy of the Military Colleges program is that it only trains ROTP Cadets.

Here are some tidbits of information for you:

Up until a few years ago, betweem 5 to 10% of the Cadet Wing at RMC were actually Reservists enrolled through a program called RETP. RMC is actually authorized by QR&Os to allocate up to 15% of its Cadet Wing positions to Reserve Officers.

These Reserve Officers would pay for a portion of their education and would receive summer employment through the CAF. Many of these Reserve Officers would complete their studies and move on to the civilian world while remaining in the Reserve Force.

I can name three individuals that I went to school and am still in contact with that were/are Reservists off the top of my head:

a. BEng in Chem Engineering, MEng on Nuclear Engineering, Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford with a degree in Law and now an Associate at a Seven Sisters Law Firm. Also a Reservist

b. BEng in Chem Engineering, MBA and Law Degree and now a CEO, Also a Reservist .

c. BA in Business, MBA and now a Director for a Major Canadian Energy Corporation, Also a Senior Officer in the Reserves.

Yes, no value to Canada or the CAF at all, what a poor investment

Of course, with these types of successes, the Senior Leadership brain trust of the CAF decided that they did not want to allow Reservists to attend RMC and wanted higher ROTP enrollment so these opportunities are no longer available. A peculiar decision from an organization that claims to want to strengthen the Reserves?

Then there is Otter Squadron which no longer really exists. Over 10% of the Cadet Wing also used to be NCMs who were accepted in to the UTPNCM program.

They were a crucial component of the program at RMC and participated in all aspects of the College. They also provided much needed leadership at the school.

The CAF also curiously decided to do away with this program as well?

3. Then lets talk about how the CAF decided to delink the training calendar of the Regular Force from the Military College because and to quote a Senior Officer "RMC doesn't get to dictate how we train our Officers".

I was in the room for this one . This decision added year(s) to the training time for RMC Cadets.

I don't know Sir? Maybe having Cadets sitting around for 2+ years after they graduate is a bigger waste of money than the CAF working RMC in to its training calendar? A calendar that, up until you decided to arbitrarily change it a few years ago, worked very well for decades .

Frankly, if they interpret "RMC officers aren't actually better than DEOs" or "the benefits from RMC aren't worth the cost" as some sort of personal attack, they really need to work on their grown up skills. If they can't handle a discussion about an institution without perceiving all points against the institution as a personal slight... well then that's probably a pretty good argument that said institution didn't properly prepare them to act as leaders like it claimed it did

It's not hard to interpret it like that when all you hear are terms like "Ring Knockers" regularly used (I don't own a ring btw) or I can search through the thousands of posts on this forum criticizing RMC and the people who went there. Some of the criticism is warranted but some of it is just jealousy over perceived privilege which is a very Canadian trait aka, "I don't have it do they shouldn't either".

IMO, you sound jealous. You didn't receive a benefit so instead of trying to make yourself better or pushing yourself, you want to bring everyone down to your level .

But that's basically the entire CAF atm, a bunch of whingers complaining about how they aren't paid enough or they don't have enough benefits, or how they should be allowed to have purple hair .

 

[dimsum]

But that's basically the entire CAF atm, a bunch of whingers complaining about how they aren't paid enough or they don't have enough benefits, or how they should be allowed to have purple hair .

I would be hard pressed to think of any military mbr who doesn't want more pay/benefits, or looser dress regs.

The RAAF allowed beards recently and the Australian Army social media forums lit up with "why can't we have beards?!"

But, to keep this on topic, here's a consideration for OP from someone who also paid for their university education (minus $8000 because of the $2000 annual subsidy from the Reserves) - you're getting a "free" (as in you aren't paying for it in money) Engineering degree with a guaranteed job, should you wish, afterwards. That is more than many civilian university grads can say.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Back on topic, for the original poster, you’re going to find pilot training a lot more intensive both in pressure and timelines within which you will have to perform with far less room for error than during your time at RMC. Consider RMC good practice for developing effort management/coping strategies to allow you to perform at acceptable levels that will support subsequent success.

Good luck and all the best with your time at RMC and when you get to flight training. Pass both and then you can give people the pilot’s smug stare when they dig at your for your time at RMC.

I hear Doughnuts on the parade square is great preparation for a career in aviation? Confirm?

I noticed a distinct lack of Skylarks when I went back to RMC a few years ago. There was apparently a new rule that "Cadets had to receive authorization from their CoC to perform skylarks". That defeats the whole purpose of a skylark!

I told Cadets I wouldn't personally authorize any Skylarks and to not bother asking. I also told them that they were all Adults and should know what's acceptable and isn't. If they wanted to create mischief, it would be on their own accord and if they were caught, they would live with the consequences of their actions

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I would be hard pressed to think of any military mbr who doesn't want more pay/benefits, or looser dress regs.

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't want more pay and benefits anywhere.

The RAAF allowed beards recently and the Australian Army social media forums lit up with "why can't we have beards?!"

But, to keep this on topic, here's a consideration for OP from someone who also paid for their university education (minus $8000 because of the $2000 annual subsidy from the Reserves) - you're getting a "free" (as in you aren't paying for it in money) Engineering degree with a guaranteed job, should you wish, afterwards. That is more than many civilian university grads can say.

I tell them that there is no such thing as a free lunch. RMC covers tuition but there is a catch .

RMC is a great preparation ground for dealing with the BS you'll face afterwards . It's 4 years of room inspections, uniforms, waking up early everyday, mandatory physical fitness, school you're forced to go to.

 

[Journeyman]

I suspect that the original poster is less whiney today because a Chinook spent yesterday afternoon running kiddie rides.


ps - for transparency, when selected for commissioning, I was told I didn't have adequate math/science background for MilCol, so I had to wear jeans & sweatshirts every day at a civie school! Mind you, they did let me do my MA at RMC.

 

[PMedMoe]

Maybe this thread needs a split.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Maybe this thread needs a split.

We might just have to lump it and the rest of the threads about RMC in to a new super thread and title it "RMC Dumpster Fire"

 

[Edward Campbell]

We might just have to lump it and the rest of the threads about RMC in to a new super thread and title it "RMC Dumpster Fire"

I agree with 'Bogey:' the whole business of selection for and production of officers, including education and training deserves a super-thread of its own. Officers have a major influence on all of us - even on we civvies when we must send our tax dollars to pay for "toys for the boys" and so on - and their importance is way out of proportion to their numbers in there CF and in society, at large. How we pick officer candidate, how we educate and train them, why and how we retain and then select some for advancement matters a lot.

 

[dimsum]

I agree with 'Bogey:' the whole business of selection for and production of officers, including education and training deserves a super-thread of its own. Officers have a major influence on all of us - even on we civvies when we must send our tax dollars to pay for "toys for the boys" and so on - and their importance is way out of proportion to their numbers in there CF and in society, at large. How we pick officer candidate, how we educate and train them, why and how we retain and then select some for advancement matters a lot.

Can we call it "stripes, pips and crowns - the Officer selection/training megathread"?

 

[FJAG]

It is- we had an organization in Winnipeg called the Winnipeg Infantry Tactical Group. It basically combined the two regiments into one unit, each retaining its customs and traditions. There were a lot of concerns, as well there should be. It was a decent arrangement in my opinion. One LCol and one CWO for the entire group. Two Regiments - one a Rifles regiment and a Highland regiment PLUS the Band, and the Pipes and Drums.
It worked quite well for a time.

They still have the 38 Artillery Tactical Group combining 10, 26 and 116 field.

Merely aggregating several reserve units under one CO and RSM isn't the answer. It's a tiny cosmetic fix.

There is only one logical reason to keep all these reserve units which is to form a base upon which you can mobilize the population a la 1914 (where they didn't) and 1939 (where they did). There is zero plan for that, however, and you could just as easily "mobilize the population" into units brought off a deactivated status by assigning it a core of leaders and trainers from the existing RegF and ResF. So forget about it. The need to keep 130 units doesn't exist at all.

There are only two legitimate paths forward. The first requires a measure of integration of RegF personnel and equipment with ResF personnel into units of whatever name so that the core leadership and training functions are there to grow the ResF expertise. The second is a path forward which expands equipment holdings and the size of the force itself without any full-time personnel expansion and cost.

RMC is not entirely an anachronism. It's business model is. Virtually every country has some type of leadership academy to develop young civilians into leaders. Only a few have the luxury of spending four years also giving them an education that for the vast majority of them is wasted. Certainly, it helps providing four years of maturity before unleashing them on the troops and it provides a measure of a wider world view that helps some of them destined for higher command. There are more economical models that can do that.

After Somalia, the CAF went on an intellectualism binge for it's officers by eliminating such things as the OCTP program (of which I am a product). It was a sledgehammer solution to a problem that didn't really exist. Stupidity exists amongst the well educated and brilliance exists amongst the less educated. Our failure is in substituting a belief that four years of education builds brilliance rather than having a more robust selection system. I recall the intake of arty officers the year I came through. We were half and half ROTP and OCTP. Of the ROTP, most were RMC and a few were civilian university. Unsurprisingly the RMC grads created a pecking order where they were on top, the civilian university a step below them and the OCTP at the bottom. Unsurprisingly, the brighter amongst the civilian university crowd and the OCTP got out of the CAF to bigger and better things on civvy street while the the RMC and the plugs stayed in. Some of the former to good careers but the bulk as mediocre middle managers with full pensions.

Personally I'd throw RMC under the bus for program where every year the CAF selects their officers from a cross section of civilian universities and out of high school and then puts them through a one year leadership/classification training/low level management program (yup, kind of like Sandhurst). I'd do it at Gagetown/Halifax/and some eastern air base so that the training atmosphere is more conducive of their initial job and moves away from the rarified environment of red serge, pill box hats and old ivy covered buildings. Young officers should be inculcated with the environment they are about to join and not the one that was there over a century ago.

I would keep the base, however, and repurpose it. Never sell real estate. It's absolutely a prime location and if nothing else could be converted to PMQ condos to house the families posted into Kingston.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They still have the 38 Artillery Tactical Group combining 10, 26 and 116 field.

Merely aggregating several reserve units under one CO and RSM isn't the answer. It's a tiny cosmetic fix.

There is only one logical reason to keep all these reserve units which is to form a base upon which you can mobilize the population a la 1914 (where they didn't) and 1939 (where they did). There is zero plan for that, however, and you could just as easily "mobilize the population" into units brought off a deactivated status by assigning it a core of leaders and trainers from the existing RegF and ResF. So forget about it. The need to keep 130 units doesn't exist at all.

There are only two legitimate paths forward. The first requires a measure of integration of RegF personnel and equipment with ResF personnel into units of whatever name so that the core leadership and training functions are there to grow the ResF expertise. The second is a path forward which expands equipment holdings and the size of the force itself without any full-time personnel expansion and cost.

RMC is not entirely an anachronism. It's business model is. Virtually every country has some type of leadership academy to develop young civilians into leaders. Only a few have the luxury of spending four years also giving them an education that for the vast majority of them is wasted. Certainly, it helps providing four years of maturity before unleashing them on the troops and it provides a measure of a wider world view that helps some of them destined for higher command. There are more economical models that can do that.

After Somalia, the CAF went on an intellectualism binge for it's officers by eliminating such things as the OCTP program (of which I am a product). It was a sledgehammer solution to a problem that didn't really exist. Stupidity exists amongst the well educated and brilliance exists amongst the less educated. Our failure is in substituting a belief that four years of education builds brilliance rather than having a more robust selection system. I recall the intake of arty officers the year I came through. We were half and half ROTP and OCTP. Of the ROTP, most were RMC and a few were civilian university. Unsurprisingly the RMC grads created a pecking order where they were on top, the civilian university a step below them and the OCTP at the bottom. Unsurprisingly, the brighter amongst the civilian university crowd and the OCTP got out of the CAF to bigger and better things on civvy street while the the RMC and the plugs stayed in. Some of the former to good careers but the bulk as mediocre middle managers with full pensions.

Personally I'd throw RMC under the bus for program where every year the CAF selects their officers from a cross section of civilian universities and out of high school and then puts them through a one year leadership/classification training/low level management program (yup, kind of like Sandhurst). I'd do it at Gagetown/Halifax/and some eastern air base so that the training atmosphere is more conducive of their initial job and moves away from the rarified environment of red serge, pill box hats and old ivy covered buildings. Young officers should be inculcated with the environment they are about to join and not the one that was there over a century ago.

I would keep the base, however, and repurpose it. Never sell real estate. It's absolutely a prime location and if nothing else could be converted to PMQ condos to house the families posted into Kingston.

The highlighted part in yellow isn't true though.

A higher proportion of RMC Cadets serve for short engagements and elect to leave the CAF than their DEO counterparts. But a higher proportion of RMC Cadets also go on to higher command despite making up a minority of the Forces Officer Corps.

Out of my graduating class at the Military College, the vast majority are now out of the Forces. The proportion of DEOs that are lifers is higher because they have less time in hand to make a go at something else and more to lose.

Time is our most valuable commodity. I did 17 1/2 years in the Forces but was only 35 when I "retired". I was able to transition the a new industry with equivalent pay and way more upward mobility for career progression. I have no debt and cashed out my pension. Crunching the numbers made it a no brainer move.

 

[FSTO]

Out of my graduating class at the Military College, the vast majority are now out of the Forces. The proportion of DEOs that are lifers is higher because they have less time in hand to make a go at something else and more to lose.

Hey! I’m in the room!

 

[brihard]

The highlighted part in yellow isn't true though.

A higher proportion of RMC Cadets serve for short engagements and elect to leave the CAF than their DEO counterparts. But a higher proportion of RMC Cadets also go on to higher command despite making up a minority of the Forces Officer Corps.

Out of my graduating class at the Military College, the vast majority are now out of the Forces. The proportion of DEOs that are lifers is higher because they have less time in hand to make a go at something else and more to lose.

Time is our most valuable commodity. I did 17 1/2 years in the Forces but was only 35 when I "retired". I was able to transition the a new industry with equivalent pay and way more upward mobility for career progression. I have no debt and cashed out my pension. Crunching the numbers made it a no brainer move.

It would be neat to see data on this- years of service, career progression, promotions, and retention across different officer entry plans.

I suspect RMC grads enjoy an advantage of academic and social networking. That may contribute to both the civilian success and military success disproportionate to non-RMC military peers?

 

[daftandbarmy]

It would be neat to see data on this- years of service, career progression, promotions, and retention across different officer entry plans.

I suspect RMC grads enjoy an advantage of academic and social networking. That may contribute to both the civilian success and military success disproportionate to non-RMC military peers?

They primarily benefit from, if any number of inquiries by independent judicial authorities are to be believed, institutionalized nepotism.

Which does no service to those good actors out there who might be coincidentally tarnished with that brush of shame, of course.

 

[FJAG]

The highlighted part in yellow isn't true though.

A higher proportion of RMC Cadets serve for short engagements and elect to leave the CAF than their DEO counterparts. But a higher proportion of RMC Cadets also go on to higher command despite making up a minority of the Forces Officer Corps.

Out of my graduating class at the Military College, the vast majority are now out of the Forces. The proportion of DEOs that are lifers is higher because they have less time in hand to make a go at something else and more to lose.

Time is our most valuable commodity. I did 17 1/2 years in the Forces but was only 35 when I "retired". I was able to transition the a new industry with equivalent pay and way more upward mobility for career progression. I have no debt and cashed out my pension. Crunching the numbers made it a no brainer move.

I didn't mean it as a general statement but merely reflecting on all those of us who went through Phase 4 arty in 1970.

The numbers in the last two decades are quite skewed from back in my time now that the OCTP type of program is no longer there, just some type of university based program (civilian and RMC) and DEOs.

I understand that one loses a majority of the university trained folks along the way before the "full career" point and quite frankly that's, at least in part, a feature of the entire system. One needs youth and vitality.

My overarching points are that a) requiring a university education is not a determinative factor in finding good senior leadership and b) we can't afford to waste the most valuable 4 years of a young person's life sitting in a classroom; they need to be out in the field working in their profession. Notwithstanding the Minister's advisory committee (made up largely of university professors) who put us on this track, the system we have now is elitist and a waste of resources. It costs far less to create OCTP, civilian ROTP and DEO officers than RMC ones. By all means educate those who are destined for higher things, but don't do it in bulk. Let them prove themselves first and then make it part of their ongoing development.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

To me this sounds like another person complaining about the "free education" program offered if they sign the line.

You want to fly jets and get paid for it?
You want a free education and get paid for it?
You want to be able to take these skills the tax payer paid for and you owe nothing in 10 to 20 years and go make the big bucks working for some airline?

Nothing in this world is free.

You want your wings, you have to learn to play the game. Military officers in training are expected to get dirty, expected to play the army game no matter the colour of the future uniform.

How can you expect to lead down the road and tell some one to do a messy job if you have never done it yourself?

I think the USMC has it right and hard for me to say that
USMC Camo Cover - 1980's
These covers are worn ONLY by USMC pilots. The purpose is to signify that the pilot was a "ground pounder" first. Marine Corps pilots must serve at least a year in the infantry before they are eligible to fly.
It also shows that their first job is to provide support to the troops on the ground.

Getting dirty, doing the RMC cadet routine, doing your room, uniforms etc are all to prepare you to do your job as an officer so you can lose your mind on a soldier below you for not making his or her bed properly, not having the correct uniform on and wearing it properly etc, so when you are the inspecting officer down the road, you sort of have a clue how to react and behave, so you know what is the important things in military life. Making the bed is not as important as following the step by step guide in how to handle your aircraft in an emergency situation. But if you can follow the step by step directions of how they want your bed to look each and every day, and not cut corners, they know when you need to react you in your emergency situation you will follow the guide to the letter and no short cuts and you should come out of it okay.

get over your hissy fit

 

[OldSolduer]

The selection and training of officers to command troops, fly or drive ships is critical to the success of the CAF. The model that is chosen had better be the right one. I like the idea of a Sandhurst type leadership academy, staffed by officers and WOs that can properly guide and mentor the cadets, or whatever you would call them.

 

[Jarnhamar]

To me this sounds like another person complaining about the "free education" program offered if they sign the line.

Getting paid to go to university sounds terrible.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Getting paid to go to university sounds terrible.

“Two things define you: Your patience when you have nothing and your attitude when you have everything.”

— Imam Ali

 

[Lumber]

"If you don't educate, you're finished"
-LtGen Viktor Krulak, USMC

I know a lot of smart people who for whatever reason hate school and they hate learning.
I know a lot of dumb people who have the charisma to get people to follow them.

I think requiring officers to have degrees can reduce the number of these two groups who make it into the forces.