Ottawa seeking ‘impartial’ board members to review military colleges

[dimsum]

I take the dissenting view that unless the degree is directly related to military service I question its value for the CAF.

That's probably a larger group of degrees than you'd think.

I argue that a history degree is directly related to military service, for (what I hope is) obvious reasons. So is English Lit, if for nothing else than being able to write persuasively.

Music? It's math in another form. Math is very relevant to many trades.

I can go on.

 

[Good2Golf]

Pshawwww, @dimsum. It’s not as though those who don’t know their history are fated to repeat it…

 

[Kilted]

I knew an officer who had a degree in interior design. Considering how hurting some trades are for officers, we aren't turning someone away based on which degree they have.

 

[Eaglelord17]

That's probably a larger group of degrees than you'd think.

I argue that a history degree is directly related to military service, for (what I hope is) obvious reasons. So is English Lit, if for nothing else than being able to write persuasively.

Music? It's math in another form. Math is very relevant to many trades.

I can go on.

And my point is if it isn’t a relevant degree than there isn’t much point.

History ( specifically what type of history they are studying, 15th-20th century history? Very relevant. 500 BC Greece? Not as much), is easy to argue for. English Lit? Do we need to waste 4 years of training just to attempt to learn how to argue effectively? Maybe a month or two course would be sufficient there.

I get the stretch argument for education, I have done the CAF education funding arguments, but if we are being realistic, we need to look at how much time and money is being outlaid for what value.

For a organization that is actively cutting core military training with the argument we can learn that later if we have to, we sure spend a lot of time and money on degrees of questionable value just to create degreed officers.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

And my point is if it isn’t a relevant degree than there isn’t much point.

History ( specifically what type of history they are studying, 15th-20th century history? Very relevant. 500 BC Greece? Not as much), is easy to argue for. English Lit? Do we need to waste 4 years of training just to attempt to learn how to argue effectively? Maybe a month or two course would be sufficient there.

I get the stretch argument for education, I have done the CAF education funding arguments, but if we are being realistic, we need to look at how much time and money is being outlaid for what value.

For a organization that is actively cutting core military training with the argument we can learn that later if we have to, we sure spend a lot of time and money on degrees of questionable value just to create degreed officers.

And we have an entire Cadre of officers that don't have degrees, learned everything on the job, and are given the same commission. Not saying that CFR is a sustainable production model for all officers, but, it definitely shoots the Degreed Officer Corps argument to shit and makes one question if we should be looking for qualities vice credentials in our junior leaders.

 

[SupersonicMax]

And we have an entire Cadre of officers that don't have degrees, learned everything on the job, and are given the same commission. Not saying that CFR is a sustainable production model for all officers, but, it definitely shoots the Degreed Officer Corps argument to shit and makes one question if we should be looking for qualities vice credentials in our junior leaders.

It doesn’t. There are two ways to learn something: through intensive training (ROTP) or through experience (CFR). the military considers someone with enough experience to CFR with equivalent cognitive skills than someone fresh out of a four year degree. My degrees taught me intangibles (not directly related to my degrees) and planted the seeds for many other things that would have taken me years to develop, if ever.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It doesn’t.

Very curt response, but ok.

There are two ways to learn something: through intensive training (ROTP) or through experience (CFR).

ROTP is education with military training peppered in. Very few of my peers that did ROTP directly apply their education to their job and instead routinely are trained while in position for their specific role.

the military considers someone with enough experience to CFR with equivalent cognitive skills than someone fresh out of a four year degree.

One's cognition and ability varies over time. In fact, there is the argument that our adult brains aren't fully developed until the age of 25. The average ROTP grad is 22. I have worked for many fine subalterns who were educated, but not wise. They had the education, but lacked the pattern recognition or maturity to make a solid decision.

My degrees taught me intangibles (not directly related to my degrees) and planted the seeds for many other things that would have taken me years to develop, if ever.

While I will ignore the confirmation bias, those seeds being planted (at great cost to the tax payer) wouldn't have grown for shit unless they are watered with experience, mentoring, and personal character.

I am not saying have a degree as an officer isn't valuable, I'm asking is it required in all cases. Do we value credentials over character? Do credential equal character? Is it value added in producing junior leaders or is it just a carrot dangled to draw folks in?

In my opinion, it's a nice to have not a need to have. Especially given the Lord of the Flies situation on Point Frederick, it has been shown that education does not equal more ethical behaviour out of our officer candidates. When push comes to shove, I have seen 3/4 pillars collapse under the weight of graduating a member out. I have also seen TDV/DGC become a punchline.

Our efforts would be better spent investing in finding persons with the right character, ability, and aptitude to lead than assuming a 4 year degree is a Captain America shield against impropriety.

 

[Halifax Tar]

While I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next guy, isn't this all moot ?

I find it hard to believe the CAF or the GOC will relent on its officer production method(s). We have ingrained in our society an educational, and by extension social class system. Or perhaps reinforced an existing one. And asking the upper rungs to make these changes is akin to expecting MPs pass legislation that cuts their own pay.

Letting the unwashed masses into these levels is dangerous to the balance of power of the educational industry.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

While I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next guy, isn't this all moot ?

Not when it's being discussed at the upper echelons because of the lack of yield in the investment

I find it hard to believe the CAF or the GOC will relent on its officer production method(s). We have ingrained in our society an educational, and by extension social class system.

Which is, at least in 2023, less and less about education raising people up the rungs, but reinforcing the social class system. The majority of people with Bachelor's degrees in Canadian society are living and working poor. There are a select minority that are legacies who are moving up because of Mom and Dad's connections.

And asking the upper rungs to make these changes is akin to expecting MPs pass legislation that cuts their own pay.

Letting the unwashed masses into these levels is dangerous to the balance of power of the educational industry.

Yes and no.

Where does a junior officer sit in the pecking order of Canadian society? Pretty goddamn low I would say. Those who hold the rungs of power politically and militarily in this country are there due to the social network I mentioned above, not the school or degree they hold.

What we are seeing now is a look into how much are we willing to pay for a mediocre product? The education industry itself is under the microscope within larger Canadian society, not just the CAF.

RMC/ROTP is a massive cost to taxpayers and, rightly so, if that investment is bringing more bad press than results... I'd look into pulling my chips out.

For my own kids, I am actively encouraging moving away from University and towards applied college programs or apprenticeships. The Boomer idea of getting a 4 year degree, becoming management at a company, and living comfortably in suburbia is becoming extinct with every raise of interest , tax increase, and tuition hike.

How long before the concept of ROTP is no longer a draw, as credential saturation floods the job market?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Very curt response, but ok.

ROTP is education with military training peppered in. Very few of my peers that did ROTP directly apply their education to their job and instead routinely are trained while in position for their specific role.

And that's the magic word(s). The CAF doesn't hire officers for specific roles (well, very few and all of them have degrees, usually doctorates). It's pretty much the same in the ranks, even the requirement there for a minimum level of education has increased in the past several decades. If recruiting and training was aimed at filling "specific roles", then CAF could mass produce ptes and 2nd Lts since there would be no requirement to consider the next step in a military career and release all those 'one and done' before the next batch of 18 to 24 year olds joins up (sounds remarkedly like the conscription armies of the Cold War). But we don't; we have to compete with industry to get the adequate (I refuse to characterize the CAF's recruiting pool as "best and brightest") manpower resources that will stick around long enough to fill positions of increasing responsibility and complexity. If all we had to fill was infantry platoon commander positions, then the obvious choice would be soldiers with 12 to 14 years experience (no university degree required), don't have to commission them, don't have to 'mentor' them and their pl 2ic would be another sergeant senior to the section commanders; natural career progression.

But the world doesn't work that way. And like it or not, bitch about useless degrees or not, but the standard, minimum acceptable educational requirement for entry level, junior management positions in both the private and public sector is a bachelor's degree, sometimes related to the job being done and sometimes (more often in the service sector) a non-specific, basket weaving, general arts degree. If the CAF is going to attract adequate talent (and hope that it approaches best and brightest territory) that will stick around long enough to get the training and experience needed for senior positions then it either has to recruit potential officers who already have a degree (DEO) or send them to university (ROTP/UTPNCM). For those who suggest a post-commissioning/post initial employment university track - what would be cheaper paying, an OCdt $30k a year to go to school or a Capt $100K.

Yes, there is something to say for un-degreed officers from the ranks; I was one. In fact, I was in an officer occupation (HCA) that at one time (decades and decades ago) had the highest percentage* of individuals who had been commissioned after service in the ranks (not just CFR but also OCTP and UTPM, or the previous single service equivalents). According to one study I saw when we were doing an OA in the late 1980s more than 90% had prior service in the ranks and the majority of those did not have a degree. However the limitations of that heritage was identified in the OA. But in-service officer production programmes are not very efficient.


*Edited to add

For sake of accuracy, there was one officer classification back then (40 years ago) that did have a higher percentage from the ranks - Flight Engineer - 100% from the ranks. Of course, there were no more officers in that MOC being generated and I don't think that there were very many still around, even back then.

 

[Eaglelord17]

And that's the magic word(s). The CAF doesn't hire officers for specific roles (well, very few and all of them have degrees, usually doctorates). It's pretty much the same in the ranks, even the requirement there for a minimum level of education has increased in the past several decades. If recruiting and training was aimed at filling "specific roles", then CAF could mass produce ptes and 2nd Lts since there would be no requirement to consider the next step in a military career and release all those 'one and done' before the next batch of 18 to 24 year olds joins up (sounds remarkedly like the conscription armies of the Cold War). But we don't; we have to compete with industry to get the adequate (I refuse to characterize the CAF's recruiting pool as "best and brightest") manpower resources that will stick around long enough to fill positions of increasing responsibility and complexity. If all we had to fill was infantry platoon commander positions, then the obvious choice would be soldiers with 12 to 14 years experience (no university degree required), don't have to commission them, don't have to 'mentor' them and their pl 2ic would be another sergeant senior to the section commanders; natural career progression.

But the world doesn't work that way. And like it or not, bitch about useless degrees or not, but the standard, minimum acceptable educational requirement for entry level, junior management positions in both the private and public sector is a bachelor's degree, sometimes related to the job being done and sometimes (more often in the service sector) a non-specific, basket weaving, general arts degree. If the CAF is going to attract adequate talent (and hope that it approaches best and brightest territory) that will stick around long enough to get the training and experience needed for senior positions then it either has to recruit potential officers who already have a degree (DEO) or send them to university (ROTP/UTPNCM). For those who suggest a post-commissioning/post initial employment university track - what would be cheaper paying, an OCdt $30k a year to go to school or a Capt $100K.

Yes, there is something to say for un-degreed officers from the ranks; I was one. In fact, I was in an officer occupation (HCA) that at one time (decades and decades ago) had the highest percentage of individuals who had been commissioned after service in the ranks (not just CFR but also OCTP and UTPM, or the previous single service equivalents). According to one study I saw when we were doing an OA in the late 1980s more than 90% had prior service in the ranks and the majority of those did not have a degree. However the limitations of that heritage was identified in the OA. But in-service officer production programmes are not very efficient.

Industry does not require a degree for management, in fact some of the best bosses I have ever had don’t have degrees.

Some of these bosses have had careers where they finished them off as top of their departments in charge of all the maintenance in the mill, with well over 100 skilled tradesmen, engineers, and managers below them. I would dare someone to try and argue they are incompetent.

Most the management positions which require a degree as a starting point are in not results based jobs. They are a lot harder to measure the exact effect management is having over the employees. Industry is pretty easy to tell if your competent or not, and unlike many other careers will get rid of you quickly if your not competent.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Over the years I've come to question why officers who take the combat engineer path require a ring.

• Bridge design? 6A or above NCM
• Road design? 6A or above NCM
• ADR? 6A or above NCM
• Obstacle belt planning? Not really necessary for a degree, look at a map.
• Obstacle construction? NCMs
• Obstacle breaching? NCMs

None of this requires a degree, in my admittedly slanted opinion. It's not like Cbt Eng Os are sitting around doing a bunch of urban planning or whacking out a new design for gypsum saddle pumps every other week.

 

[dimsum]

Industry does not require a degree for management, in fact some of the best bosses I have ever had don’t have degrees.

I would suspect that the number of MBA students would suggest that there is a ceiling for those without MBAs (and the prerequisite education prior to that).

I would also suspect that the days of folks like your previous bosses are going by the wayside. I'm not saying that industry won't have management that didn't "rise from the ranks", but I'm guessing that those without post-secondary or MBAs will stop at middle management, at best.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

And that's the magic word(s). The CAF doesn't hire officers for specific roles (well, very few and all of them have degrees, usually doctorates). It's pretty much the same in the ranks, even the requirement there for a minimum level of education has increased in the past several decades. If recruiting and training was aimed at filling "specific roles", then CAF could mass produce ptes and 2nd Lts since there would be no requirement to consider the next step in a military career and release all those 'one and done' before the next batch of 18 to 24 year olds joins up (sounds remarkedly like the conscription armies of the Cold War). But we don't; we have to compete with industry to get the adequate (I refuse to characterize the CAF's recruiting pool as "best and brightest") manpower resources that will stick around long enough to fill positions of increasing responsibility and complexity. If all we had to fill was infantry platoon commander positions, then the obvious choice would be soldiers with 12 to 14 years experience (no university degree required), don't have to commission them, don't have to 'mentor' them and their pl 2ic would be another sergeant senior to the section commanders; natural career progression.

Perhaps the issue is that we no longer have that kind of job market within the rest of Canadian society, so why the hell would we expect different from potential CAF applicants?

The Gig economy sees potential middle managers and executives jumping from position to position without a thought to the development of corporate knowledge and experience. Millenials and Gen Z saw their "company man" parents get thrown to the wolves in 2008, with their pensions evaporating in the process. They will walk for more money, status, or better working conditions without a thought for the company, and we're seeing it now with ROTP folks leaving after their oblig service is done.

But the world doesn't work that way. And like it or not, bitch about useless degrees or not, but the standard, minimum acceptable educational requirement for entry level, junior management positions in both the private and public sector is a bachelor's degree, sometimes related to the job being done and sometimes (more often in the service sector) a non-specific, basket weaving, general arts degree.

Those winds are changing too. Far more large companies (Meta, Google, Amazon, etc.) are placing more value on workplace fit and culture than they are on degrees. Are they taking a large gamble on it? Hell yes, but it seems to be yielding success. It also seems to be marrying up with the Gig economy because they know that they need to optimize the 3-5 years that person is with the company, rather than expect the 20-25 year slow burn of yesteryear.

If the CAF is going to attract adequate talent (and hope that it approaches best and brightest territory) that will stick around long enough to get the training and experience needed for senior positions then it either has to recruit potential officers who already have a degree (DEO) or send them to university (ROTP/UTPNCM).

Or, hear me out, recruit laterally and accept that risk.

If we are competing with industry for talent, we need to stop playing cricket and start playing baseball. If the Gig economy and job market has supervisors, managers, and executives jumping from company to company; they're not looking to jump down to entry level.

The same skills that make for a good senior officer are the same ones that make for a good senior manager. We can train army into them as they go.

We don't have the market cornered on professional development.

For those who suggest a post-commissioning/post initial employment university track - what would be cheaper paying, an OCdt $30k a year to go to school or a Capt $100K.

4 X 30K Bachelor + 1 X 120K for Masters = Maj/LCol with Masters and JCSP

vs

2 X 100K for an Masters sans Bachelor's from RRU = same qualification

Better use of funds and less risk of that 4 X 30 walking after 9 years.

Yes, there is something to say for un-degreed officers from the ranks; I was one ... But in-service officer production programmes are not very efficient.

Perhaps this is another conversation we should be having. Are there better ways to product officers from our own ranks before throwing good money after bad justifying ROTP because "degrees are needed because reasons"

 

[dimsum]

Over the years I've come to question why officers who take the combat engineer path require a ring.

• Bridge design? 6A or above NCM
• Road design? 6A or above NCM
• ADR? 6A or above NCM
• Obstacle belt planning? Not really necessary for a degree, look at a map.
• Obstacle construction? NCMs
• Obstacle breaching? NCMs

None of this requires a degree, in my admittedly slanted opinion. It's not like Cbt Eng Os are sitting around doing a bunch of urban planning or whacking out a new design for gypsum saddle pumps every other week.

Are those jobs what they do in their initial posting? How about subsequent postings? Does a Major or LCol do that as well?

Back to @Blackadder1916 's point, that's where the "specific role" comes into play. If a Cbt Eng O only did the stuff you said on the list, then I'd 100% agree that a degree isn't probably worth it and for them to just take the same courses. But if they get into other things that do require degree-equivalent, then maybe the education is needed.

 

[FJAG]

While I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next guy, isn't this all moot ?

I find it hard to believe the CAF or the GOC will relent on its officer production method(s). We have ingrained in our society an educational, and by extension social class system. Or perhaps reinforced an existing one. And asking the upper rungs to make these changes is akin to expecting MPs pass legislation that cuts their own pay.

Letting the unwashed masses into these levels is dangerous to the balance of power of the educational industry.

It's only moot if it's never questioned or challenged. If we stayed with the status quo all the time we'd be wearing powdered wigs and leather stocks.

Every once in a while a sacred cow needs to be slaughtered.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Are those jobs what they do in their initial posting? How about subsequent postings? Does a Major or LCol do that as well?

Back to @Blackadder1916 's point, that's where the "specific role" comes into play. If a Cbt Eng O only did the stuff you said on the list, then I'd 100% agree that a degree isn't probably worth it and for them to just take the same courses. But if they get into other things that do require degree-equivalent, then maybe the education is needed.

Those jobs are 90% of a combat engineer regiment's life cycle. The rest is sharpening shovels and axes and sweeping floors, and there was always a paucity of commissioned members around when that was going on. Granted, later in life they may get into a position where additional education is required, so build a new course at the staff college or wherever to provide it. Combat engineers do combat shit, mostly building good things for us and smashing up the bad guys' good things. I am unabashedly biased with this post, FYI.

 

[dimsum]

They will walk for more money, status, or better working conditions without a thought for the company, and we're seeing it now with ROTP folks leaving after their oblig service is done.

Is it a new thing though? I remember folks saying the same thing pre-2008, and even pre-9/11. Much of the ROTP crowd (I wasn't one) left after their obligatory service.

Or, hear me out, recruit laterally and accept that risk.

If we are competing with industry for talent, we need to stop playing cricket and start playing baseball. If the Gig economy and job market has supervisors, managers, and executives jumping from company to company; they're not looking to jump down to entry level.

The same skills that make for a good senior officer are the same ones that make for a good senior manager. We can train army into them as they go.

We don't have the market cornered on professional development.

Arguably, globally, we should be playing cricket instead of baseball

While I broadly agree with what you're saying, the "plug and play" Exec to military leadership may also have some pretty big downsides. I can't remember which paper I was reading but it basically said that the US military, a while back, had issues because many of their leaders had MBAs and were making the military too "corporate" and bringing ideas/processes over that don't work in a military context.

We can definitely teach folks how to OPP and all that, but if their experience has been "just in time" everything and having little, if any, stockpiles, they aren't going to want to keep stocks (that aren't making money, in their mind) in warehouses. But, as we all know, militaries do need stockpiles because just-in-time doesn't really work when a shooting war just shows up.

Those jobs are 90% of a combat engineer regiment's life cycle. The rest is sharpening shovels and axes and sweeping floors, and there was always a paucity of commissioned members around when that was going on. Granted, later in life they may get into a position where additional education is required, so build a new course at the staff college or wherever to provide it. Combat engineers do combat shit, mostly building good things for us and smashing up the bad guys' good things. I am unabashedly biased with this post, FYI.

I suppose my real question in this case is whether we are trying to create an [insert trade] officer, or and officer in an [insert trade]?

What you're suggesting is the first case, where in most MOSIDs, the CAF is doing the second case. I suggest that the higher officers go (and it's not really even that high - most start doing less or none of their formal training past Captain), creating an officer that happens to be an [insert trade] is more beneficial as a whole.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I would suspect that the number of MBA students would suggest that there is a ceiling for those without MBAs (and the prerequisite education prior to that).

I would also suspect that the days of folks like your previous bosses are going by the wayside. I'm not saying that industry won't have management that didn't "rise from the ranks", but I'm guessing that those without post-secondary or MBAs will stop at middle management, at best.

My current boss is one of those people, hired just a couple years ago specifically because of his capability. All the job postings for jr management for being a front line supervisor I have seen recently have specifically required experience on the job and a related trade certification.

Management is opening up in industry specifically because no one wants to do it. Pay is only slightly higher than a tradesperson for a lot more responsibility and work.

My point being is why do we need degrees for the military? For some trades there is a definitive requirement for the schooling (Doctor being a obvious one), but for the majority why could we not just have military ran courses teaching what they need to learn at the appropriate level? We do this already, adding or removing a degree from it doesn’t change the quality of the officer unless the degree is actually strongly related to the service requirements.

 

[dimsum]

For some trades there is a definitive requirement for the schooling (Doctor being a obvious one), but for the majority why could we not just have military ran courses teaching what they need to learn at the appropriate level?

As an aside, I think it would be hilarious to see the howls of "we used to be credited a degree - now the courses mean nothing!" from folks if we went that route.

I don't disagree, but then we might be contributing to "green welfare" more so than we already do if our qualifications don't translate to the civilian world. Also, we would need the instructors with the qualifications to do so, and accredited by some board (e.g. whoever governs what Engineering course standards are like in universities)...at what point is it actually easier to turn around and say "well why don't we just send them to civilian university"?