Master Corporals training OCdts now at CFLRS?

[Meridian]

I'll preface this with the fact that I have nothing specific against it, but when I was in IAP 2 years ago, we were told that MCpls would not be our course instructors (aside from stuff like NBCD/weapons, etc) and that the prescribed level was Sgt or higher for Ocdt training, and that MCpl's dealt with Recruits..

A Sgt told me the idea was that too many Mcpls were somewhat having more fun than they should have dealing with officer candidates and that a Sgt level instructor was preferred.


Ive seen people  mentioning they had MCpls as instructors on OCdt courses so.....?
/

 

[Thirstyson]

Last January's IAP phase of BOTC at St-Jean had maybe 3 of the 20 or so NCM staff applied to specific platoons were MCpls. I don't recall any complaints. Almost all our rifle classes were taught by MCpls too.

 

[Meridian]

Oh to clarify again, I didn't mean to imply they shouldn't instruct.. just that when I had asked one of my Sgt's why there were no MCpl's instructing any OCdts, above is the answer I got.

*shrug*

It was interesting.. my platoon's OC was probably the one with all the youthful exuberance... most of my NCM staff seemed very annoyed to even be there. So maybe a young MCpl looking to gain experience in instruction could benefit from placing his "footprint" so to speak in the "minds" of young officers to be

 

[HollywoodHitman]

There is a shortage CF wide, of qualified instructors, across the board. What makes an OCDT's education in soldiering more important than that of the Privates that the officer would eventually lead? Just a question though.......What rank would you consider to be appropriate to teach an officer cadet?

 

[Meridian]

I think as long as there is a range of ranks instructing the officers-to-be ,then there is the greatest amount of experience and practicallity being transferred to the Candidates.

Long run, I would like to see OCdts developping a significant rapport with Senior NCOs, as they will eventually rely heavily on these people in the "real world". When this has to happen, Im not sure.

Again, it wasnt ME who came up with why, Im just asking if there is some sort of Forces policy on it, since an Instructor/Sgt told me there was, and now MCpls are instructing.

I already stated what he told me as to why.

 

[CivU]

"What rank would you consider to be appropriate to teach an officer cadet?"

I don't know that the cadet portion needs to be emphasised.  The basic training for recruits and officer candidates is identical with the exception of the officer candidates portion being sped up to allow for leadership components at the end...The training is and should be implemented by the same staff as the recruits.  Both groups are entering at the same level and will inevitably interact in the near future, so no one group is above or below being instructed by an NCM as oppossed to an NCO.  Both have all the tangible experience to offer.

However, emphasising the Cadet part seems to imply that Officer Cadets are nothing more than Air, Army, or Navy Cadet teenagers...I hardly think this is the case...

 

[HollywoodHitman]

First off..........NCM's and NCO's are the same thing. Other militaries have not adopted this NCM title, as the CF tends to fix things that aren't broken....The difference you're referring to is that of Senior NCO's vs Jr. NCO which is the difference between MCpl and Sgt......The phrase Junior NCO implies inexperience or age.....Not the case........There are PLENTY of Corporals and MCpl's who are as highly qualified as some of the most Senior of NCO's in the CF. Keep in mind also that MCpl is an appointment.

An officer cadet is not yet an officer. They are Officer Candidates....... Once the criteria and training requirements have been met, the Queen's Commission is given and the OCDT is then usually promoted to 2Lt, where their education as a junior officer is continued. OCDT's are not entitled to salutes, nor entitled to be called 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' until they have been given the Commission. If it's done by NCO's, it's done out of courtesy, not because it's entitled. Because of the direct entry programs and changes in the system, sometimes OCDT is a formality while paperwork is being done.....Never the less, it remains a training rank, as does 'Private, Untrained.'

The reference or highlight of the word cadet is not a slur on the kids that are in cadets, nor should it be considered a slur on those who hold the 'rank' of OCDT. That is indeed what you are, a cadet, an officer in training. You will be an officer once you have been deemed fit by the powers that be, to hold a Queen's Commission.....There is no shame whatsoever in it. I was a cadet and loved it.

"However, emphasising the Cadet part seems to imply that Officer Cadets are nothing more than Air, Army or Navy Cadet teenagers....I hardly think this is the case..."

Are you sure? While not ALL officers become officers while young, traditionally, many young officers of attended the military colleges straight out of highschool.......I joined when I was 18.....What part of eighTEEN or nineTEEN does not a teenager make? I was most definitley a kid when I joined up.......NO shame in that!

This is not a slight against ANY officer, or OCDT....However it should be noted that many of our finest officers once started out as 'nothing more than Air, Army or Navy Cadet teenagers', some of whom in fact WERE teenagers when they began their officer careers........

 

[Big Foot]

Putting in my 2 cents on the topic here, I had a platoon warrant, one sargeant and two master corporals as instructors on IAP this past summer. To say the least, they were very helpful and knowledgable about all things military. Though, they seemed to suggest that they were assigned to the IAP side mainly due to budget constraints. I guess a master corporal is a cheaper and almost as effective instructor. Not meant to be a slight against MCpls but if thats true, then its only for budgetary reasons they're instructing IAO. Can anyone confirm or deny if this is the case?

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Bigfoot,

It's not budget restraints per se, but rather a critical shortage of qualified instructors in the CF. There simply are not the numbers of instructors available to meet the training demands. MCpl / Sgt are essentially interchangeable in the way they teach and their capabilities. Sgt's and up can run more versatile ranges though,  because of the Small Arms course.

TM

 

[CivU]

Both OCdt and 2LT are training ranks as far as I know; however, my main point was that drawing comparisons between cadets and officer cadets seems to take away from the extensive training an officer cadet receives while en route to gaining a degree (which, after having completed Phase 1) is the only requirement to obtain a comission.  The Phase training of an officer cadet is quite substantial compared to that which a cadet, regardless of element, would take part in...this is not to slight the cadet organization, but is a reality.

And while many young officer candidates do enter the system directly from highschool and as teenagers, this is not the case for all persons...the nature of the system that exists now i such that persons enter while attending university in a number of capacities, or after already having completed university degrees.  Officer cadets are as you said, candidates in a system designed to select and train persons as officers in the CF, I don't think this is the basis for the Cadet organization...so I'm not sure comparing the two, or the fact that some persons may have experience in both, is relevant...

As far as, "First off..........NCM's and NCO's are the same thing. Other militaries have not adopted this NCM title, as the CF tends to fix things that aren't broken....The difference you're referring to is that of Senior NCO's vs Jr. NCO which is the difference between MCpl and Sgt......The phrase Junior NCO implies inexperience or age.....Not the case........There are PLENTY of Corporals and MCpl's who are as highly qualified as some of the most Senior of NCO's in the CF. Keep in mind also that MCpl is an appointment."

I understand that NCM's and NCO's are all uncomissioned members of the CF, however, while there may be Cpl's and MCpl's that are highly qualified, they haven't received the training of Senior NCO's (such as an SLC course).  I don't think that Junior NCO is intended to imply only age or inexperience, but more than anything, less time in, a lesser rank, and less training in terms of what is required to be a Senior NCO...If officer cadet is not intended to be a slight to the person holding it, then I think that Junior NCO would be similiar in meaning...

 

[HollywoodHitman]

One major mistake many young officers make these days seems to be the idea that NCO's are uneducated. I am university educated as are many, many, many others. I know of an MCpl who holds a phd......the SLC is a leadership course designed to take a Senior NCO to the next level. Time in is not always relevant to rank or appointment. In the infantry, a Sgt is usually the rank of someone in a Section Commander's position.......As an MCpl, I am also fully qualified as a Section Commander...........

Anyway, this is turning into a pissing contest. I am a 'Junior' NCO with 13 years in. I know Corporals who've been in for 18 years, happily as a Corporal, and they've forgotten more about soldiering than I know..........Time in and experience often counts for more than courses. Dot the I's cross the T's,check the box. Don't confuse rank with experience when you eventually get your commission. Your private soldiers will teach you just about as much as your more experienced troops. Rank also does not meen competence. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this board who have seen incompetence promoted, time and time again, many of those a competent soldier wouldn't generally follow out of curiosity. But then again, the military is a curious thing. Because I have chosen, and yes chosen is the word, not to take my commission when it has been offered to me, does this mean I am uneducated and my opinion and soldiering experience carrys no weight?

Anyway, I've addressed the initial question as to why we lowly MCpl's teach prospective officers....Best of luck to you in the future.

TM

 

[Bartok5]

Any flat-faced civvie "Officer Cadet" with recently-shorn long hair, a candy-stripe on his/her shoulder and an attitude needs to be emasculated toute-suite.  Sorry, but time spent at the Kingston "finishing school"  does not an officer make.

Why wouldn't we have MCpls teach what amounts to "commission wannabes" the basic soldier skills?  Quite frankly, I can't think of a more appropriate instructor-student match.  CAP is nothing more than a combination of "SQ" and "PLQ" with a bit of "BIQ" (heaven forbid for the sock-counters!) thrown into the  mix.  We're not talking rocket-science.......

In my humble view, MCpls are emminently suited to teach basic officer skills (eg. CAP), and that is precisely what is currently happening at the CTC Infantry School.  Quite frankly, the ignorant masses that appear for CAP are not worthy of the staff-starved attention of Sgts, WOs, and experienced officers until they have proven their worth by passing CAP.  It is all about identified potentilal for eventual MOC qualification attainment and subsequent progression.  We don't need Sr NCOs and officers to make the initial cut.  In  ny humble view, there is no rank better suited to do so (with appropriate oversight) than the MCpl.  Basic officer training is no different than a combined BIQ and PLQ.  Now ask yourself who does the fundamental teaching for those NCM courses?  I rest my case.....

If the recruiting system cannot or will not "sort the wheat from the chaff"  in terms of basic officer candidates, then it falls to the training system to do so.  And in my view, the rank ideally suited to do so given the rather "numpty"  low level of CAP, is the MCpl. 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have always expected (and trusted)  my MCpls to perform as NCOs.  I have rarely been disappointed.  That said, I have zero compunction about MCpl's teaching and selecting the next generation of officers.  If the officer-wannabe can't convince the MCpl by the time the course ends that he or she has the requisite parts to lead, then it ought to be end of story.

MCpls as "officer wannabe"  instructors?  You betcha.  I am fully behind that action.  Just my $.02, of course....

 

[McG]

BMQ, SQ, BIQ and PCF courses are all MCpl stuff, but I'd like to think we have Sgts instructing on the PLQ.

 

[dglad]

Fully agree.  MCpl is a pivotal rank in the Army.  We rely more and more on the drive and ability of MCpls to turn plans into execution, simply because we're running so desperately short of Sgts+.  And today's MCpl, who is typically not only a soldier with several years of experience on the square and in the field, is also typically a university student, frequently a grad student, and not uncommonly a grad.  They are smart, motivated young men and women who are closest to the coal face and actually, as sect comds, have what amounts to the widest span of command of any level of leadership.  No problem at all with them teaching the soldierly necessities to future officers.  Now, when it comes to delving more deeply into the realm of leadership trg, its time to bring in the higher ranks, but for an OCdt, the strict leadership trg is a relatively small component of the package.

The caveat?  The same one as always.  A given MCpl is just as capable of being a thud as is any other rank, so we need to select the RIGHT MCpls for the job.  But that's always true, no?

 

[HollywoodHitman]

McG....

PLQ is being taught by MCpls and up........Again, shortage of staff in alot of situations, but again......There's no reason a competent Jack can't instruct future leaders.

 

[George Wallace]

BMQ, SQ, BIQ and PCF courses are all MCpl stuff, but I'd like to think we have Sgts instructing on the PLQ.

MCG

MCpl's have been the backbone of the PLQ instructional staff since all it's previous incarnations.  Years ago I instructed and assessed both CF JLC Common and JLC Land courses at the Battle School as a MCpl.  MCpls were instructors and Section 2 1/c, Sgt's were Section Comd's and WO's were Crse WO's.  Then we would have a Junior LT or even a 2LT as Crse Offr.  This whole thread is a mout point.

GW

 

[AndrewWGrieve]

When I did CAP and BOTP, I had corporals as section 2ICs both times.  My OC, Captain Ryan (perhaps someone in Gagetown might know him), told our company that we deserved only to have sergeants teaching us and that corporals were beneath us.  That didn't go over so well with our corporals. 
I did not have a problem with the instructors on our course; however, as CAP is a leadership course, I believe it should be taught by those with significant leadership experience, and I believe it would be beneficial to have the course taught by sergeants if possible. 
In reference to Mark C.'s remarks about emasculating young officers, I do not believe that is the right tact to take.  While I agree that the recruiting system is not necessarily providing us with consistently excellent officer material for the courses, a blanket condemnation of officer candidates it out of line.  Given adequate training, the majority of those personnel attending CAP could become decent officers.  There are some who cannot, but even those are not necessarily "sorted out" by training.  I have seen some exceedingly poor personnel pass the CAP course, and it is not the decision of the MCpl, the Sgt, or the Lt in command; it is the restrictive training regime that does not allow personal opinion to have any effect on the progress of a candidate.  I ran a BMQ course this summer and my Pl Wo and I were constantly faced with horrendous candidates who could never be soldiers, but we could do nothing about it.  We had to wait for them to give up themselves.  I had an extremely high number of voluntary releases.  Some of those releases are being recoursed as we speak.
And while the CAP course may not necessarily be extremely different from BIQ and PLQ, the expectations for those completing the course certainly are.  As a 2Lt (granted I would be a Lt right now except they changed the course requirements after I was coursed this summer), I have been placed in charge of an entire Battery for a month of training, completed summary investigations and boards of inquiry, attended leadership conferences all over the place (and fought with NDHQ and LFWA where necessary), commanded troops in the field and in garrison, composed standing orders, fought with Area Support Units over policies, completed accident investigations, ran a basic training course, and more.  They would not expect that from a MCpl.  The only training requirement for me to undertake all of these tasks has been to have completed BOTP and CAP.  They may say that 2Lt is only a training rank, but we are often given significant responsibility.  Training for courses like CAP is therefore more important to a certain degree than a BIQ course; screwing up in command of forty men carries more significance than screwing up as a private.  Therefore, the leadership training conducted for a CAP course is important to all army personnel.  Instead of insulting the "officer wannabes" taking the course, perhaps you should rethink the significance that the leadership training of such a course has for those around you.  That "officer wannabe" could be the one commanding your unit in battle soon enough. 

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Sorry, this thread as taken a a sarcastic tone, but I figured  would add my two cents.  Yes there's a shortage of qualified instructors in the CF.  It should not matter what rank instructors a course if they are qualified. Usually qualified means that they are PLQ qualified. All that is required is that the member is professional, competent, leads by example etc.  Obviously, at every rank there are exception to the rule about being professional, but the majority of the time when people are insructing they take great pride knowing the influence they may have in the development of future leaders and soldiers.  If they learn bad lessons from you, they will bring these bad lessons back to the unit. Courses like the BMQ, Basic, CAP are the foundation.