Proposed New Officer Education Model

Sorry to start a thread in addition to the 'Language training' one but this is to discuss much more detail.......

The emerging proposed new employment model for officers looks something like:

Undergraduate degree and GCSE level language speaking/listening required to Beige.

Masters degree required to Pink (or Blue, TBC).

Based on Captains Warfare course and ICSC Officers will be streamed into "Executive" and "Professional".

Top 20% will be Executive stream officers will undertake ACSC immediately following ICSC and be streamed towards sub-unit command after only 1 SO2 appt.

Professional stream officers will undertake 2 more SO2 appts at least before going to the pink list.

From Sandhurst all OCdts will be enrolled in a part time undergraduate or post-graduate qualification depending on the level they are already at.

That's about all I can remember from the brief we had, all junior officers are being briefed on this on JOLP/JOTAC/Captains Warfare course at the moment.

Massive shake up designed to produce better educated officers!
 
So, we won't discriminate between grads and non-grads but you will be a grad if you want to progress.
 
Top 20% will be Executive stream officers will undertake ACSC immediately following ICSC and be streamed towards sub-unit command after only 1 SO2 appt.

Hoofing. The RN has just made ACSC for SO1s only, predicated on (perceived) Army demands that it remain a "senior" course......
 

Bad CO

Admin
Hmm, ACSC for junior Majors who are identified as 'going places'

Do I detect a wheel being turned?
 
And I'd suggest that they'll be placed on the "operations" module; after 8 months of doing exactly that, I have no doubt they'll come top of the course.

AJD anyone?
 
To misquote and probably mis-remember elements of a speech that Monty gave to a group of Cadets at RMAS in the late 1940's ......."Character first, then brains."

O.K., fair enough, things have moved on hugely since then but the sentiment still remains valid.

How many fellow ARRSER's have encountered the "Educated Idiot" whilst serving - far too many I dare say.
 
Just as many who've met the Chap who bluffs......
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
It's easy to mock the educated idiot, but let's consider the other side of the coin - how many times have we seen the Hyper Full Screw type flounder when in a Staff or multinational environment. I remember one particularly painful (and hilarious) conversation between a real G3 thruster, clearly a fine combat commander with a roughly room-temperature IQ and an alarmingly smart and well-trained (and -educated) US high-speed, low-drag Lt Colonel.

The Brit was outclassed and outthought comprehensively. No idea where he ended up, but the US officer retired as a youngish 4-star.
 
The MA could be provided by ACSC if the Army goes to an "all Maj" policy. Which would also mean the Army Officers can't bin off the MA in order to make their lives easier (cf Learning thread).....
 
There is a danger of divorcing the officer from the soldier and soldiering. The US Army produces some exceedingly well-educated officers (let's avoid the wrangle that's going on in the language qualification thread if we can) but they often seem to exhibit a lack of "practicality" and seem - to this outsider at least - almost a different species of creature to the soldiers that they have to command. It invites the question: what is the balancing point - especially when constrained by time and career key points.
 

QRK2

LE
There is a danger of divorcing the officer from the soldier and soldiering. The US Army produces some exceedingly well-educated officers (let's avoid the wrangle that's going on in the language qualification thread if we can) but they often seem to exhibit a lack of "practicality" and seem - to this outsider at least - almost a different species of creature to the soldiers that they have to command. It invites the question: what is the balancing point - especially when constrained by time and career key points.

IMHO I'd say that the statement "almost a different species of creature to the soldiers that they have to command" is considerably more true of us than them. I'd challenge most to differentiate between an US officer and OR out of uniform, but there is little difficulty with their UK counterparts.

Also the US soldiers and marines (ORs) that I've worked with have also been or appeared to be rather more educated than ours.
 
There is an Army 1* out there, in a key position in the Defence Reform, who both resembles, talks and sounds like Tim-Nice-But-Dim; he is a parody of the British Army Officer - Lord alone knows what Ministers and Senior Civil Servants think...
 
@QRK2. Fully concur in terms of appearance (West Point and the Citadel have yet to embrace "them goddamned faggotty pink pants") and the educational level of US enlisted personnel - in certain areas such as SOF, INTEL and so on - but venture into the depths of the quartermaster corps, transport and some infantry units and you really are aware of the vast divide. I was (badly perhaps) suggesting that the burden of educational courses upon which US officer progression seems dependent leaves even less time for (ahem) hands on soldiering. We are already well along that route - separating out the "managers" from the "workforce"?
 
There is a danger of divorcing the officer from the soldier and soldiering. The US Army produces some exceedingly well-educated officers (let's avoid the wrangle that's going on in the language qualification thread if we can) but they often seem to exhibit a lack of "practicality" and seem - to this outsider at least - almost a different species of creature to the soldiers that they have to command. It invites the question: what is the balancing point - especially when constrained by time and career key points.

Surely the years and years that a captain expects to spend in staff appointments do more of a job in divorcing officers from soldiering as any form of education?

Thinking about In-Service degrees, if officers are going to have to do Masters or higher is it better that they do them entirely part time or would they be better packed off to a university full-time and given an appointment in the Reserves to keep their hands in?
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Some heretical questions; I'm wondering:

Do we have too many SO3 posts and could the bulk of them could be filled by either suitable LEs, WOs or civil servants, thus freeing Captains to spend some time with soldiers, or educating themselves.

Do we have too many staff officers altogether and could much of their work - which I grant you they do assiduously and with dedication to filling every minute, at least with activity, even working extended hours - be officially designated as nugatory, or capable of being done by someone other than a Combat God?

Should we be thinking about a smaller, sharper, specifically-streamed General Staff?

Should we consider whether a combat commander is necessarily also a fine staff officer and contrariwise and perhaps looking to stream folk in that way?
 
What this implies is that the majority will, in time, have to take an in-service degree. This is of course possible, but it's generally the exception rather than the rule.

Along with MK1/2, JOTAC, Captains' Warfare Course, MA modules and ICSC are people going to be given time to complete, or is it another burden on time with no mitigation in place? Looking around at the number of gapped posts, and no sign of 'process' going away any time soon, I fear the latter. Brave new world...
This struck me as well. Especially the bit about getting dicked with further study as soon as you leave Sandhurst (am I interpreting that right?). Most people will just have finished A Levels or their first degree prior to joining; i'm not sure how happy i'd be about being forced to take up a part-time PGCert or whatever so soon. And a waste of time & money given how many people see out their short service commission and bugger off.

Much better to give people some time to get their feet under the table and have a think about what topic they want to do. And a bit of a retention tool - commit to a few more years as and we'll send you to Shriv for 5 months to smash out the taught part of a Masters, knock out the thesis in slow time. I dunno, maybe people get more than enough of the place at Staff College, but it seems more appealing than burdening people with a long-term part-time commitment on top of their normal job.
 
Should we be thinking about a smaller, sharper, specifically-streamed General Staff?

Should we consider whether a combat commander is necessarily also a fine staff officer and contrariwise and perhaps looking to stream folk in that way?

That was Gen Cowan's thesis for his MA......
 

Latest Threads

Top