MA courses: Differences in AECs?

Discussion in 'Officers' started by DangerMouse, Mar 6, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. DangerMouse

    DangerMouse Old-Salt Moderator

    Having completed two of the three Military Analysis (MA) courses, a number of us on the last course commented how differently some of the courses were run; Althought the content is standardised there appear to be significant differences between Army Education Centres (AECs).

    What experiences, good and bad, have people had of MA courses at difference locations and AECs? Which AECs would you recommend (or not recommend) people apply to, and why?
  2. DM,

    While I understand the sentiments behind your post, I'm not sure that most people get the opportunity to decide which AECs to attend. For most, it's simply a relief to find time to get on one in between tours, exercises and the rest...

    However, having completed the MA system, and the old JOTES education package, I believe that any variance in these courses is down to the standard of the tutors that the courses get. The guest lecturers are usually very good, but I have been on courses and at seminars where it was abundantly clear that the tutor had only swotted up the previous night and had no clue what everyone was talking about. This was particularly apparent directly after Op Telic when certain elements of the 'student body' had experience of the kinds of things that - to most tutors - are just concepts of leadership and command - these chaps had actually 'done it'. Most tutors acknowledged respect to experience where due but one in particular viewed their knowledge almost as a threat - their experiences were irrelevant and inconsequential compared to the great analytical and theoretical works that you study on these courses.

    By and large, the MA system gets people (officers) thinking - which is clearly a good thing - and allows them to air and exchange views in a totally free environment. ALthough, if that is true, it doesn't explain why some people try and thrust on them... :D
  3. I must admit to having had three glowing reports from MA - therefore consider it to be a critically objective course that should be used to determine promotion to the higher reaches of the Army. :D

    That said I have been lucky enough to have been with a group of people who wanted to learn but also have fun. Bullshit bingo during the final debate was typical of one week :wink:

    I would recommend people do it in order (or at least A and B prior to C) as C relies on previous knowledge of security issues and Clausewitz etc.

    The six month gap between modules is pretty spurious - logically those who need to develop would benefit from a series of concentrated training rather than it being spread over 12 months (IMO).
  4. Hmm out of interest what is contained in these MA courses? As the two contents already mentioned sound suspiciously like my degree...
  5. I agree with Calypso. Generally the civvy tutors are very good and accept the 'realtime' experiences that people have. On the other hand, one does seem to view it as a competition of knowledge, and as she has a PhD and is obviously clever you tend just to let her rant on about the theoretical side of life. The military tutors tend to be good, but as ever it is personality driven, some go by the letter of the law on how it should be done, others use their imagination.