Thread: ETS Officer

Originally Posted by Nutter

Originally Posted by Posh_91

Originally Posted by Nutter

Hi I was reading about the PGCE and understand that it would be essential as an ETS to be qualified to teach.

My question is though, what if you already hold a PGCE (well will in 9 weeks)? like I do.

You mean if you have done your first degree in PGCE???

I have my degree but I am also doing myPGCE at the moment.

Oh I see, not with the Army. But you want to go ETS.

I want to go ETS aswell, I'm sure you don't need to repeat the training for the PGCE after sandhurst. It only takes a year to get the qual after RMAS and I think it takes 2 years in civvy street.

So you might have made it a bit harder for yourself if I'm honest, especially as the Army fund PGCE's after RMAS with ETS officers.

But it would make sense for you to skip the PGCE training after RMAS, unless you would just have to do a refresher course because educational ways could be slightly different in civvy street compared to the military way of teaching, but I don't think that would matter as it is a standard qualification that everyone needs to get.

I'd definitely get in contact with your local careers officer and ask them though, to double check, so your not wasting any valuable time!

Good luck with everything, if you do become ETS we could cross paths at sometime in our career and not even know it! :D

Scary

Originally Posted by Nickhere

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I did wonder about that, particularly as a number of PQOs actually do more green stuff than the ETS.

Er, not really. PQOs on a whole do not do green stuff at all. How many dentists, lawyers, doctors and nurses do you think they let on patrol? The ETS has a large role in cultural and linguistics which are very useful on patrol and in the FOBs.

This is one reason why ETS Officers do the full commissioning course rather than the PQO one. ETS Officers are required to do the full breadth of tasks just like any other regular officer maybe required to do. One thing my fellow schoolies and I noticed in Afghanistan was that many officers from other corps and regts spent 95% of their time in Bastion while their soldiers worked on their own under a Staffy or Sergeant in the FOBs. Signals and RMP officers were two particular examples. Meanwhile, the SPS Det Commander and I were in the FOBs.

It's not a dig or me being Mr two shits, just something to note that not everyone in the Army does green stuff and even the corps that call themselves the greener ones may in actual fact not spend much time out of Bastion.

Never been on patrol with a schoolie, been on patrol with doctors and nurses. And the schoolies I saw in FOBs were teaching or doing media ops.

But you seem to have missed my point: RMAS is about leadership (apparently) and command on operations. The ETS do neither, so why do they go to RMAS for the full CC? If the ETS was about soldiering they would have soldiers.

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by Nickhere

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I did wonder about that, particularly as a number of PQOs actually do more green stuff than the ETS.

Er, not really. PQOs on a whole do not do green stuff at all. How many dentists, lawyers, doctors and nurses do you think they let on patrol? The ETS has a large role in cultural and linguistics which are very useful on patrol and in the FOBs.

This is one reason why ETS Officers do the full commissioning course rather than the PQO one. ETS Officers are required to do the full breadth of tasks just like any other regular officer maybe required to do. One thing my fellow schoolies and I noticed in Afghanistan was that many officers from other corps and regts spent 95% of their time in Bastion while their soldiers worked on their own under a Staffy or Sergeant in the FOBs. Signals and RMP officers were two particular examples. Meanwhile, the SPS Det Commander and I were in the FOBs.

It's not a dig or me being Mr two shits, just something to note that not everyone in the Army does green stuff and even the corps that call themselves the greener ones may in actual fact not spend much time out of Bastion.

Never been on patrol with a schoolie, been on patrol with doctors and nurses. And the schoolies I saw in FOBs were teaching or doing media ops.

But you seem to have missed my point: RMAS is about leadership (apparently) and command on operations. The ETS do neither, so why do they go to RMAS for the full CC? If the ETS was about soldiering they would have soldiers.

I think you have missed the point. RMAS is about leadership, but also many other things as well.

So you don't think teaching, is leading then?? Hmmm

Originally Posted by Posh_91

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by Nickhere

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I did wonder about that, particularly as a number of PQOs actually do more green stuff than the ETS.

Er, not really. PQOs on a whole do not do green stuff at all. How many dentists, lawyers, doctors and nurses do you think they let on patrol? The ETS has a large role in cultural and linguistics which are very useful on patrol and in the FOBs.

This is one reason why ETS Officers do the full commissioning course rather than the PQO one. ETS Officers are required to do the full breadth of tasks just like any other regular officer maybe required to do. One thing my fellow schoolies and I noticed in Afghanistan was that many officers from other corps and regts spent 95% of their time in Bastion while their soldiers worked on their own under a Staffy or Sergeant in the FOBs. Signals and RMP officers were two particular examples. Meanwhile, the SPS Det Commander and I were in the FOBs.

It's not a dig or me being Mr two shits, just something to note that not everyone in the Army does green stuff and even the corps that call themselves the greener ones may in actual fact not spend much time out of Bastion.

Never been on patrol with a schoolie, been on patrol with doctors and nurses. And the schoolies I saw in FOBs were teaching or doing media ops.

But you seem to have missed my point: RMAS is about leadership (apparently) and command on operations. The ETS do neither, so why do they go to RMAS for the full CC? If the ETS was about soldiering they would have soldiers.

I think you have missed the point. RMAS is about leadership, but also many other things as well.

So you don't think teaching, is leading then?? Hmmm

I thought some highly qualified spark would put me in my place...

... my limited experience of RMAS leads me to believe that I know more about RMAS then you appear to do .

I do not think that teaching is leading.

You might be able to argue that there are leadership techniques and characteristics that can be seen in teaching and teachers but that does not mean that teaching is leading.

You might be able to argue that by ensuring that my soldiers are educated to the highest standard that they can achieve that I am meeting my responsibilities as a leader but that does not mean that teaching is leading.

You might be able to argue that the skills that I teach my soldiers are part of my role as a leader but that doesn’t mean that teaching is leading.

The Army uses leaders to train the next generation, not teachers. It uses teachers to provide leaders with additional skills to make them better leaders. Teachers do not command soldiers on operations, leaders do. I hope you don’t think I’m being a total ccok but… the ETS do not command soldiers* and because they are neither a PQO or a conventional officer they fall between two stools, which to my view is not satisfactory. The purpose of training an ETS officer to the standard of the Commissioning course is not obvious…

• To develop commanders of courage and willpower, with the temperament for decisive action in difficult and dangerous circumstances.
• To foster attitudes to integrity, selflessness and loyalty which set the soldier apart from others.
• To teach Officer Cadets how to think and communicate as commanders and to foster a deep interest and care for the individual.
• To achieve a grounding in British Military Doctrine and its significance in all forms of conflict.
• To encourage the analysis of strategic and war studies as a foundation to military thought and wisdom.
• To train Officer Cadets in the basic skills and battlefield disciplines of soldiering.

PS. I think ETS officers do a great job at providing the education and training that they do, but I fail to see why they need to be considered different from a PQO.

*The caveat to this is that the only unit, sub-unit and pl/tp command appointments held by ETS officers that I have been unable to unearth are E1 command of ETS officers in training, Miscellaneous E2 command of UOTCs (OCdts in Training) and a few coy comd and YO appointments in ARTD (recruits in training) which are E2 in nature but E1 liability to fill. I humbly wait to be educated.

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by Posh_91

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by Nickhere

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I did wonder about that, particularly as a number of PQOs actually do more green stuff than the ETS.

Er, not really. PQOs on a whole do not do green stuff at all. How many dentists, lawyers, doctors and nurses do you think they let on patrol? The ETS has a large role in cultural and linguistics which are very useful on patrol and in the FOBs.

This is one reason why ETS Officers do the full commissioning course rather than the PQO one. ETS Officers are required to do the full breadth of tasks just like any other regular officer maybe required to do. One thing my fellow schoolies and I noticed in Afghanistan was that many officers from other corps and regts spent 95% of their time in Bastion while their soldiers worked on their own under a Staffy or Sergeant in the FOBs. Signals and RMP officers were two particular examples. Meanwhile, the SPS Det Commander and I were in the FOBs.

It's not a dig or me being Mr two shits, just something to note that not everyone in the Army does green stuff and even the corps that call themselves the greener ones may in actual fact not spend much time out of Bastion.

Never been on patrol with a schoolie, been on patrol with doctors and nurses. And the schoolies I saw in FOBs were teaching or doing media ops.

But you seem to have missed my point: RMAS is about leadership (apparently) and command on operations. The ETS do neither, so why do they go to RMAS for the full CC? If the ETS was about soldiering they would have soldiers.

I think you have missed the point. RMAS is about leadership, but also many other things as well.

So you don't think teaching, is leading then?? Hmmm

I thought some highly qualified spark would put me in my place...

... my limited experience of RMAS leads me to believe that I know more about RMAS then you appear to do .

I do not think that teaching is leading.

You might be able to argue that there are leadership techniques and characteristics that can be seen in teaching and teachers but that does not mean that teaching is leading.

You might be able to argue that by ensuring that my soldiers are educated to the highest standard that they can achieve that I am meeting my responsibilities as a leader but that does not mean that teaching is leading.

You might be able to argue that the skills that I teach my soldiers are part of my role as a leader but that doesn’t mean that teaching is leading.

The Army uses leaders to train the next generation, not teachers. It uses teachers to provide leaders with additional skills to make them better leaders. Teachers do not command soldiers on operations, leaders do. I hope you don’t think I’m being a total ccok but… the ETS do not command soldiers* and because they are neither a PQO or a conventional officer they fall between two stools, which to my view is not satisfactory. The purpose of training an ETS officer to the standard of the Commissioning course is not obvious…

• To develop commanders of courage and willpower, with the temperament for decisive action in difficult and dangerous circumstances.
• To foster attitudes to integrity, selflessness and loyalty which set the soldier apart from others.
• To teach Officer Cadets how to think and communicate as commanders and to foster a deep interest and care for the individual.
• To achieve a grounding in British Military Doctrine and its significance in all forms of conflict.
• To encourage the analysis of strategic and war studies as a foundation to military thought and wisdom.
• To train Officer Cadets in the basic skills and battlefield disciplines of soldiering.

PS. I think ETS officers do a great job at providing the education and training that they do, but I fail to see why they need to be considered different from a PQO.

*The caveat to this is that the only unit, sub-unit and pl/tp command appointments held by ETS officers that I have been unable to unearth are E1 command of ETS officers in training, Miscellaneous E2 command of UOTCs (OCdts in Training) and a few coy comd and YO appointments in ARTD (recruits in training) which are E2 in nature but E1 liability to fill. I humbly wait to be educated.

Im just thiking about this as a teacher(ish) but if I were going to teach or arrange training for something then I would make sure I could do it first. So if you are going to arrang training for people or running classrooms then leadership ability would be essential but by doing sandhurst you also understand where the officer has come from and thus understand the ability of them and you know the expectations of an officer and those they expect of their men.

Apologies for grammar I cant see what im writing.

Barbs is bang on here. In my view, the ETS would find its identity better if its officers were PQOs.

Another option would be to make it a transferee only Corps. This sounds contradictory, and probably is, but I feel ETS officers should be either:

- fully trained teachers who have joined to teach
or
- officers taking a degree of experience from elsewhere (be it an LE comission or as transferees)

At the very least, the ETS should reintroduce the practice of teeth arm attachments, like the int corps or air corps.

Originally Posted by IffleyRoad

Barbs is bang on here. In my view, the ETS would find its identity better if its officers were PQOs.

Another option would be to make it a transferee only Corps. This sounds contradictory, and probably is, but I feel ETS officers should be either:

- fully trained teachers who have joined to teach
or
- officers taking a degree of experience from elsewhere (be it an LE comission or as transferees)

At the very least, the ETS should reintroduce the practice of teeth arm attachments, like the int corps or air corps.

What does it matter if it was? And it's obviously not for a reason, so build a bridge and get over it!!!

Originally Posted by Posh_91

Originally Posted by IffleyRoad

Barbs is bang on here. In my view, the ETS would find its identity better if its officers were PQOs.

Another option would be to make it a transferee only Corps. This sounds contradictory, and probably is, but I feel ETS officers should be either:

- fully trained teachers who have joined to teach
or
- officers taking a degree of experience from elsewhere (be it an LE comission or as transferees)

At the very least, the ETS should reintroduce the practice of teeth arm attachments, like the int corps or air corps.

What does it matter if it was? And it's obviously not for a reason, so build a bridge and get over it!!!

That's the attitude... the Army says it is so it must be right...

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by Posh_91

Originally Posted by IffleyRoad

Barbs is bang on here. In my view, the ETS would find its identity better if its officers were PQOs.

Another option would be to make it a transferee only Corps. This sounds contradictory, and probably is, but I feel ETS officers should be either:

- fully trained teachers who have joined to teach
or
- officers taking a degree of experience from elsewhere (be it an LE comission or as transferees)

At the very least, the ETS should reintroduce the practice of teeth arm attachments, like the int corps or air corps.

What does it matter if it was? And it's obviously not for a reason, so build a bridge and get over it!!!

That's the attitude... the Army says it is so it must be right...

Just hurry up and wait okay

Quite a touching attitude, really. 'The army is doing something; therefore it must be correct'.

I suspect you have some short sharp shocks awaiting you.

Originally Posted by IffleyRoad

Quite a touching attitude, really. 'The army is doing something; therefore it must be correct'.

I suspect you have some short sharp shocks awaiting you.

Obviously

Originally Posted by IffleyRoad

Barbs is bang on here. In my view, the ETS would find its identity better if its officers were PQOs.

Another option would be to make it a transferee only Corps. This sounds contradictory, and probably is, but I feel ETS officers should be either:

- fully trained teachers who have joined to teach
or
- officers taking a degree of experience from elsewhere (be it an LE comission or as transferees)

At the very least, the ETS should reintroduce the practice of teeth arm attachments, like the int corps or air corps.

There are a couple of valid points here; however, the ETS does have a large E1 commitment at the 2Lt/Lt level that transferees would not be likely to fill due to time/promotion constraints (unless they took non grads, but then that would be counter intuitive). That is one of the main reasons they have DEs from the word go. There are a vast number of DE and LE tranferees who add a tremendous amount of value, and thbis is only likely to increase the way manning levers are being mentioned by MCM at the moment (although I believe the ETS is at full mannning presently and IRCs/Reg Cs are hard to come by).

And finally, I thinlk it would be remiss of me to fail to point out on behalf of my AAC brethren, the Air Corps are "teeth arm" - the definition of Combat troops being those who engage the enemy with direct fire weapons.
Yes, many of their officers carry out attachments, but this is often whilst they're awaiting slots on a pilots course.

Even if u have a PGCE u have to do most of the ETS PGCE (PCET) as strange as it may seem