It's certainly not a "command" course and is barely 'staff'. The course assessment was based on a current affairs essay, a written brief (odd, as staff work - op or non op is not taught on the course) and a joint presentation on a historic campaign.

Syndicate discussion periods are cusory, the staff ride has been binned and the campaign estimate is a slow 3 day walk through of a process which is completely alien to our dark blue and light blue kin (and of very limited relevance to a TA officer).

Cynically, its a means to end, so attend for that reason alone.

My experience of the old course is now nearly 20 years out of date but I detect echoes.... we were syndicated with assorted loggies, medics etc to provide joint solutions because the poor "G4" bastards were totally out of their depth when it came to the "estimate" etc. I'd be interested to hear current "Thrusters" views on their chance of promotion to Lt Col. My view is that the No 6 board is an extra "glass ceiling", stopping otherwise qual and recommended folk from even applying for Comd. slots ....opening up more vacancies for Regulars and lets just ignore that bit in TA Regs about Comd slots.....

TA Lt

Originally Posted by sundance

I'm getting ever more pissed off with the endless training reporting and paperwork treadmill, which doesn't seem to lead anywhere and starting to seriously consider the above as an option.

TA Lt Col

Originally Posted by Nemesis2010

It's certainly not a "command" course and is barely 'staff'. The course assessment was based on a current affairs essay, a written brief (odd, as staff work - op or non op is not taught on the course) and a joint presentation on a historic campaign.

Syndicate discussion periods are cusory, the staff ride has been binned and the campaign estimate is a slow 3 day walk through of a process which is completely alien to our dark blue and light blue kin (and of very limited relevance to a TA officer).

Cynically, its a means to end, so attend for that reason alone.

Originally Posted by Nemesis2010

It's certainly not a "command" course and is barely 'staff'. The course assessment was based on a current affairs essay, a written brief (odd, as staff work - op or non op is not taught on the course) and a joint presentation on a historic campaign.

Syndicate discussion periods are cusory, the staff ride has been binned and the campaign estimate is a slow 3 day walk through of a process which is completely alien to our dark blue and light blue kin (and of very limited relevance to a TA officer).

Cynically, its a means to end, so attend for that reason alone.

Get out what you put in. I enjoyed it (#1 as above). My syndicate and DS were a good bunch which helped. The campaign planning bit has been very relevant to me in the post I've been in the last year or so. I thought most (not all) of the speakers were excellent. I'd agree that they were trying to cover a lot of bases for a wide spectrum of people in a limited amount of time.

For #1 we got sent an information pack with all the precourse requirements in it (including that barrack dress thing) and there was plenty to get stuck into like MK and recommended reading.

I particularly liked the way they said they wanted to promote an atmosphere of open debate and intellectual freedom, then in came a badge with a big stick to give us our precautionary bowlocking about standards of dress and the consequences of parking your car in the wrong place etc. etc.

Originally Posted by stevers

Get out what you put in. I enjoyed it (#1 as above). My syndicate and DS were a good bunch which helped. The campaign planning bit has been very relevant to me in the post I've been in the last year or so. I thought most (not all) of the speakers were excellent. I'd agree that they were trying to cover a lot of bases for a wide spectrum of people in a limited amount of time.

For #1 we got sent an information pack with all the precourse requirements in it (including that barrack dress thing) and there was plenty to get stuck into like MK and recommended reading.

I particularly liked the way they said they wanted to promote an atmosphere of open debate and intellectual freedom, then in came a badge with a big stick to give us our precautionary bowlocking about standards of dress and the consequences of parking your car in the wrong place etc. etc.

Glad you enjoyed it and found it useful. I did put a lot in (and fankly got a good report - so this is not sour grapes), but I didn't enjoy it and IMO it's a poor course with a weak rationale and ill-defined aims. Sure, the speakers were fine (especially the late Richard Holmes) and we had some nice chats in the syndicate room, but that does not make it a good course. Did you do the pre-course reading and MK2(V)? It was apparent that most of the course didn't(!) How do you rate the assessment process? Current affairs essay, written brief and a 1/3 of a powerpoint?

It would be interesting to hear how the course stacks up against the overseas alternatives that are sometimes offered - how is the Canadian equivalent, I wonder?

Originally Posted by Nemesis2010

Glad you enjoyed it and found it useful. I did put a lot in (and fankly got a good report - so this is not sour grapes), but I didn't enjoy it and IMO it's a poor course with a weak rationale and ill-defined aims. Sure, the speakers were fine (especially the late Richard Holmes) and we had some nice chats in the syndicate room, but that does not make it a good course. Did you do the pre-course reading and MK2(V)? It was apparent that most of the course didn't(!) How do you rate the assessment process? Current affairs essay, written brief and a 1/3 of a powerpoint?

It would be interesting to hear how the course stacks up against the overseas alternatives that are sometimes offered - how is the Canadian equivalent, I wonder?

I did the precourse reading and MK2(V). Yes it was apparent that some didn't and likewise some didn't bother getting barrack dress. Not bothering with these things makes it very easy for the DS to populate the 'bottom third' of the course. On the assessment, it wasn't just those elements you list, but your contributions to syndicate discussions, questions to lecturers etc were all being noted, it's a rolling and continuous process.
I understand the thinking behind some of your points and the course does aim to cover a lot of material for a very broad audience in a short space of time - but I do not think it was a poor course.

Originally Posted by Nemesis2010

It's certainly not a "command" course and is barely 'staff'. The course assessment was based on a current affairs essay, a written brief (odd, as staff work - op or non op is not taught on the course) and a joint presentation on a historic campaign.

Syndicate discussion periods are cusory, the staff ride has been binned and the campaign estimate is a slow 3 day walk through of a process which is completely alien to our dark blue and light blue kin (and of very limited relevance to a TA officer).

Cynically, its a means to end, so attend for that reason alone.

Pretty much chimes with what I've heard from attendees.

A conversation on Saturday night with a current Canadian Staff College Student compared the intensity to a Distance Learning MBA (just my tuppence worth)!

Originally Posted by zenith69uk

A conversation on Saturday night with a current Canadian Staff College Student compared the intensity to a Distance Learning MBA (just my tuppence worth)!

Yes I know someone who did that course a few years back - not just a different league but a different sport all together from the UK effort (which was ironic as I think he got a place on it as he didn't make the cut for the UK course).

I think you should talk to an MFC, who no doubt will give you advice that is ecologically doubtful, but tactically magnificent.