College Degree =/= leadership

[RogueLeader]

After due thought, I have come to the conclusion that having a College Degree does not directly confer Leadership Skills.  as evidence of this: Why does all branches have "leadership schools" for Officers?  When I was going through Squadron Officers School, they were teaching a lot on leadership.

Don't get me wrong, having a college degree does have benefits, such as more training in critical thinking, researching topics, extra writing skills, and not to mention the Technical Training for your chosen program.

Thoughts?

[Storm Chaser]

And it took you that long to figure that out?

[RogueLeader]

And it took you that long to figure that out?

No, but considering the almost dogmatic fight in the NCO thread that somehow a college degree is what makes an Officer/SNCO able to lead; that I would make this topic to challenge that assertion.

[Flying Pig]

What if your degree is in Leadership    Ready....FIGHT!

[AirAux]

Which of these do not contribute to the making of a Leader, "critical thinking, researching topics, extra writing skills, and not to mention the Technical Training for your chosen program."

If a college degree does not contribute to the making of a leader, why do the uniform services require it of their officer corps??  Is the military wasting giant sums on their Academies and ROTC programs?

Why is it so hard to see the value of a college degree in the making of a leader?

The mere fact that someone has stayed the course for four years and shown enough self-discipline in the pursuit and obtaining of a four year degree shows some of the qualities desired in a leader, does it not??

A degree shows ambition and the ability to concentrate on a goal.  A college degree demonstrates that a person has the ability to think logically and has demonstrated depth of knowledge in one or two specific areas.

A degree doesn't guarantee leadership ability, but there is probably a higher chance that out of 100 college graduates you will have more leaders than you will out of 100 highschool graduates.     

[Storm Chaser]

And it took you that long to figure that out?

No, but considering the almost dogmatic fight in the NCO thread that somehow a college degree is what makes an Officer/SNCO able to lead; that I would make this topic to challenge that assertion.

Hmm... I didn't get that from the discussion. But no, that's not why the Air Force and other services require a bachelor's degree to qualify for a commission.

On a different note, the Navy and Marine Corps have Limited Duty Officers (LDOs), which are selected for commission based on skill and expertise and are not required to have a bachelor's degree. However, they can't usually assume major commands.

[coudano]

Leadership =/= Command.

[RogueLeader]

Which of these do not contribute to the making of a Leader, "critical thinking, researching topics, extra writing skills, and not to mention the Technical Training for your chosen program."

If a college degree does not contribute to the making of a leader, why do the uniform services require it of their officer corps??  Is the military wasting giant sums on their Academies and ROTC programs?

Why is it so hard to see the value of a college degree in the making of a leader?

The mere fact that someone has stayed the course for four years and shown enough self-discipline in the pursuit and obtaining of a four year degree shows some of the qualities desired in a leader, does it not??

A degree shows ambition and the ability to concentrate on a goal.  A college degree demonstrates that a person has the ability to think logically and has demonstrated depth of knowledge in one or two specific areas.

A degree doesn't guarantee leadership ability, but there is probably a higher chance that out of 100 college graduates you will have more leaders than you will out of 100 highschool graduates.   

No, all those things that I mentioned make you a better manager.  Manager =/= Leader.  They also give you the skills to make more informed decisions.  That being said, that there are more opportunities to learn leadership skills; but not nearly to the extent of learning management skills

In all of my 160+ credit hours in Collegiate Classes; I have learned how to be a better manager than Leadership (there wasn't much about leadership.)  I have learned much more in CAP about leadership than college- I would rate it 95-5 ratio CAP/College split.  Of course you millage may vary.

[JayT]

After due thought, I have come to the conclusion that having a College Degree does not directly confer Leadership Skills.  as evidence of this: Why does all branches have "leadership schools" for Officers?  When I was going through Squadron Officers School, they were teaching a lot on leadership.

Don't get me wrong, having a college degree does have benefits, such as more training in critical thinking, researching topics, extra writing skills, and not to mention the Technical Training for your chosen program.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at with this post. A college degree has nothing to do with 'leadership.' The purpose of a college degree is to challenge your assumptions and help you understand the world around you better. Some of this comes through your classroom and lab instruction, while some of it comes through the social interaction and networks you form. I know that I went into college with one very specific set of views, and came out with a much more opened mind.

From my experience as a Cadet in CAP, at least in my area, CAP got it backwards. 'Leadership' 'followership' and all of those other nonsense buzzwords that the textbooks bandied about are a means to an end, not the ends to the mean. You don't train someone to be a leader so they will be a leader, you train someone to be a leader so that a job will get done.

[RiverAux]

I don't think that anyone thinks that having a college degree confirms leadership abilities.  I daresay that there are very few college degrees that even have components that someone could stretch to say have any relation to leadership. 

Having a college degree simply indicates that you have advanced education beyond that received by most people in the country.  That by itself is a good reason to make it required to be a military officer. 

As to leadership itself, I'd say that CAP's courses cover more leadership topics than I learned in 7 years of higher education.  Not saying that they were all that great, but CAP does try. 

[SamFranklin]

This could become a good discussion. Here are a few points:

(1)  By talking about leadership "skills," versus education, you're already making a big assumption about the way to develop leaders. A skills-based approach is "Here are 5 steps for implementing One Minute Praisings."  You know how to do the process, but you don't understand the underlying principles that (supposedly) make that technique effective. An educational approach would look at the key factors affecting individual motivation. That means you need to study some psychology and history and stuff like that. The AF doctrine says that it takes a little of both to make a good leader.

(2)  A college degree can indeed have benefits in improved critical thinking, communications, etc. But that's not to say the purpose of a college education is to achieve those benefits.Some of us believe that an education is intrinsically good in itself. Some philosophers go so far as to say that the minute you put education to a utilitarian benefits test, you debase education, and that the only pure "goods" in the world are things that are done for their own sake, not in pursuit of a benefit down the road. Stanley Fish writes about this perspective in the NY Times a lot. YMMV.

(3)  for a really big discussion go look at whether the military is still served by the nineteenth century division between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. In 1800, if you were rich you could read and you had economic interests to defend, hence the commission. If you were poor, you could not read, and the best you could hope for was NCO status. (This fact is what motivates Iago to seek revenge against Othello.) But we're a (supposedly) class-less, democratic society, not England or Prussia where there's an aristocracy. Even more, now it's 2013. Lots of airmen have associates degrees. NCOs often have bachelors degrees and are highly educated. I knew a CMSgt who was "ABD"  (all but dissertation).  Maybe the old "enlisted only" track and "officer only" tracks are outdated. Maybe a MSgt with a bachelor's degree and 18 years experience oughta have more standing and authority over a 22 year old lieutenant. But that's another story.

I'm a retired teacher. End rant.

[RogueLeader]

After due thought, I have come to the conclusion that having a College Degree does not directly confer Leadership Skills.  as evidence of this: Why does all branches have "leadership schools" for Officers?  When I was going through Squadron Officers School, they were teaching a lot on leadership.

Don't get me wrong, having a college degree does have benefits, such as more training in critical thinking, researching topics, extra writing skills, and not to mention the Technical Training for your chosen program.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at with this post. A college degree has nothing to do with 'leadership.' The purpose of a college degree is to challenge your assumptions and help you understand the world around you better. Some of this comes through your classroom and lab instruction, while some of it comes through the social interaction and networks you form. I know that I went into college with one very specific set of views, and came out with a much more opened mind.

That's not what others were asserting; which are the assertions I am challenging.

From my experience as a Cadet in CAP, at least in my area, CAP got it backwards. 'Leadership' 'followership' and all of those other nonsense buzzwords that the textbooks bandied about are a means to an end, not the ends to the mean. You don't train someone to be a leader so they will be a leader, you train someone to be a leader so that a job will get done.

I train Leaders so they have a leg up on their peers, so they have a better opportunity than they would have had otherwise.  Learning the leadership and followership skills, in my experience, have helped my immeasurably increased my employability, because not only have I learned to be proactive and attention to detail, I can also take initiative in the absence of direction.  How many high school students learn that?  From what I've seen, they're conditioned to only do what they are told, and not question it.

[Storm Chaser]

Honestly, I don't see the point to this discussion. No one has asserted that a college degree equals leadership. No one said that a degree makes leaders or that people without degrees can't be leaders.

The previous discussion on the NCO Program Launched thread was about whether a degree should be required for new members to become officers. Some think that a degree should be required and others don't. That was part of the main discussion.

Some also took the opportunity to question the need for degrees in general and even to criticize those who promote higher education. Others defended higher education without necessarily agreeing that it should be required in CAP. But no one said that college education equals leadership. It doesn't, so what's your point?

[Eclipse]

The problem with the entire conversation is that the mental math doesn't balance without taking the other leaps.

Which means that we're left with the only two other options when something doesn't fit - either the planners didn't think things through to the
logical conclusions, or they are being less then forthcoming about the ultimate plans.

[Ned]

The problem with the entire conversation is that the mental math doesn't balance without taking the other leaps.

Which means that we're left with the only two other options when something doesn't fit - either the planners didn't think things through to the
logical conclusions, or they are being less then forthcoming about the ultimate plans.

Yep, those are the only two possibilities, all right.   

If something doesn't make sense to you personally, it is proof that the leadership are obviously shortsighted and illogical or -- even worse -- [whispering] they are hiding the ball.[/whispering]  Quod Erat Demonstratum.

Or just maybe . . .

Perhaps one of the reasons that you cannot make the mental math work is there is no active "plan" to require college for some or all CAP officers in the first place.  It can be hard to carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a non-existent plan.  A difficult feat of mental math to say the least.

There is a discussion here on CAPTalk, of course.  As there should be.  And probably in dozens of squadron parking lots throughout the nation.  Heck, maybe even somebody on one of the dozens of assorted CAP committees has asked "what if . . . ?" 

We can and should continue to discuss our PD program and officer appointment standards.  All of our programs and standards should be reviewed periodically and improved over time.

But my point is there is no current public or secret "plan" upon which to perform your mental math.  Really.  I've attended every BoG meeting for the last three years, and nothing was ever discussed about requiring college one way or another.  Not a single word that I can recall.  Not even informally over breakfast.

So let us continue the discussion without excessive worry about leaders being "less than forthcoming."

[Eclipse]

The problem with the entire conversation is that the mental math doesn't balance without taking the other leaps.

Which means that we're left with the only two other options when something doesn't fit - either the planners didn't think things through to the
logical conclusions, or they are being less then forthcoming about the ultimate plans.

Yep, those are the only two possibilities, all right.   

If something doesn't make sense to you personally, it is proof that the leadership are obviously shortsighted and illogical or -- even worse -- [whispering] they are hiding the ball.[/whispering]  Quod Erat Demonstratum.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.  Any plan or idea which cannot be summarized in one simple paragraph is generally doomed to failure or is not being completely disclosed.

Or just maybe . . .

Perhaps one of the reasons that you cannot make the mental math work is there is no active "plan" to require college for some or all CAP officers in the first place.  It can be hard to carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a non-existent plan.  A difficult feat of mental math to say the least.

Or maybe I wasn't referring to the college degree discussion, per se, but the entirety of the NCO discussion that invited the next leap.

It was not announced as "let's allow our prior service NCO's to progress" (period dot), it was announced as "NCO's are the backbone of the military, so we need them too, and
we're going to grow our own organically".   That opens the "why?" door, as well as the "what's broken that needs fixing?" door.

You unequivocally cannot provide one segment of your organization to have grade with "weight" without changing the game for the rest of the organization, especially not in a volunteer paradigm.
You can't have "real" NCOs without "real" officers, at least not and still maintain the credibility this is apparently seeking.  The only way to get us to any "real" in our officer grades is
raising the bar there, too.  Whether that means requiring college, granting actual commensurate authority regardless of staff posting, or some sort of internal OCS, remains to be seen,
but it has to be on the spreadsheet with this "backbone" rhetoric.

Since the math doesn't work, that only leaves the possibility that the second and third steps were not considered, or there's much more to come.

[AirAux]

Concur.

[Major Carrales]

I always assumed the idea was that having a college degree is a "benchmark" of being a professional.  Thus, as in States that require teachers to have Bachelor's, and even Master's degrees, to teach (by the way the "degree" does not automatically equal "teacher")

Goes back to the idea of a "classical" education, where one has a "universal" education.  I assert the reason is that someone who has gone to a "university" would have been trained in writing, reading, history, science, culture (music and arts) as well as being a specialist (via their "major") and could use those skills for management and even, as an educated person, command.

Leading is more than just "hey, let's go this way follow me!" it is "let's see where to go, examine with cost benefit analysis and decision making based on all available intelligence (you know there could be a reason why such is called "military intelligence.") analyze the situation and synthesize an action that is also germane to the mission objective/orders and then let us go this way....follow me."

Oh..."Street" and "Book" smarts in isolation, and mutually exclusive" make an incomplete person.  One must have both..

The US military's uniformed services probably use this for the same reason.

My question is....all speculation and "common sense" aside, what is the official reason such a degree is required for a commission?

[Mitchell 1969]

Which of these do not contribute to the making of a Leader, "critical thinking, researching topics, extra writing skills, and not to mention the Technical Training for your chosen program."

If a college degree does not contribute to the making of a leader, why do the uniform services require it of their officer corps??  Is the military wasting giant sums on their Academies and ROTC programs?

Why is it so hard to see the value of a college degree in the making of a leader?

The mere fact that someone has stayed the course for four years and shown enough self-discipline in the pursuit and obtaining of a four year degree shows some of the qualities desired in a leader, does it not??

A degree shows ambition and the ability to concentrate on a goal.  A college degree demonstrates that a person has the ability to think logically and has demonstrated depth of knowledge in one or two specific areas.

A degree doesn't guarantee leadership ability, but there is probably a higher chance that out of 100 college graduates you will have more leaders than you will out of 100 highschool graduates.   

Those stats get skewed when you factor in that a degree is a particularly American requirement for commissioning. RAF and British Army, among others, do not require a degree for commissioning, for example. So, their "higher chance" of getting leaders is gone, according to your argument.

[Blackhawk]

I concur.

[SamFranklin]

a degree is a particularly American requirement for commissioning. RAF and British Army, among others, do not require a degree for commissioning, for example. So, their "higher chance" of getting leaders is gone, according to your argument.

That's a good point. Germany is the same way.

There are historical (non-doctrinal) reasons for that practice developing. Not until Prince Charles did a British royal graduate university, and that was c. 1970. Every male royal I can think of going back to the professionalization of the officer corps has been a commissioned naval officer. HRH George VI spent WWII in uniform, though of course not deployed. Were officers from the upper class educated? Highly, but in a tutorial model (when you're fabulously wealthy you hire an eminent thinker to educate your children at your home), and/or through the great "public" (exclusive and private by our standards) schools of England like Eton, not necessarily through Sandhurst. The Brits have an entirely different tradition in regards to social class, educational systems, upward mobility and the wealthy in military service. Note that Prince William and Prince Harry are both actively serving. Harry even deployed to Afghanistan and the UK press kept quiet about it so as not to jeopardize operations. There's not a big tradition of wealthy and prominent American scions doing likewise. Factors like those surely contribute to the accessions policies of Her Majesty's armed forces. Bottom line: while other nations don't use university educations as a pre-requisite for commissions, that's not necessarily an indication that their leadership experts made a conscious decision that education is not predictive of leadership effectiveness. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Everything I learned about leadership came from CAP. College made me a critical thinker to a higher extent in business matters, but not leadership.

[Storm Chaser]

The reason the U.S. Air Force and other services require degrees as a prerequisite for commissioning is NOT because it's an indicator of leadership or even leadership potential. They want officers with a certain amount of education and, while college is not the only way to get it, the degree is an easy way to measure or verify this education. The Air Force now wants Lt Cols to have master's degrees. Does that mean that current and former Lt Cols that don't have one are not effective leaders? Of course not. But the Air Force wants field grade officers with graduate level education. And as promotions become more competitive, the graduate degree can be an effective discriminator, just like professional military education has been in the past.

[Eclipse]

^ No issue there whatsoever.

In CAP's universe, however, the reverse is the case.   Promotions are the opposite of competitive, and there is no shortage of open staff positions.

When you are selling oxygen in space, you set your own rates, when you are begging people to carry buckets of saltwater in the middle of the ocean, not so much.

[Storm Chaser]

^ I can't argue with your point either. I also thought you made an excellent point on your previous post (#15). The only "logical" conclusion to a "new" NCO program where new members can choose that path is to also increase the requirements (whatever those may be) to receive an officer appointment in CAP. I don't believe the intention of this NCO program as the "backbone" of CAP is only to provide a way for NCOs to promote. I think there's more to come (maybe).

[Mitchell 1969]

There is another impetus for for requiring a degree for commissioning, not necessarily related to leadership potential:

Times have changed and neither high school diplomas nor degrees are what they used to be.

During the early to mid 20th century, somebody with a high school diploma was often referred to as being "an educated man" or "a woman with an education." For many people, graduating 8th grade was a big accomplishment in itself. There was no concept of "college is for everybody" like we have now.

Immediately prior to WWII, the standard for commissioning as a pilot was 2 years of post high school education. That was later dropped to suit recruitment and training needs, which is how George H Bush became a 19-year old USN combat pilot. Even post war, the requirement was only raised back to two years and not a degree.

The levels of maturity and depth of general knowledge have changed. Whereas 4-year degrees used to concentrate on advanced learning and specific courses, a lot of it now is more generalized. The high school diploma of the 1940's was harder to get than what is awarded today. It was probably closer in maturity and knowledge value to today's AA degree, maybe even 3 years of college.  Today's Bachelor is closer to a 1950's AA or even HSD, today's Master closer to a 1930s-50s Bachelor.

Which all adds up to - requiring a degree gets you a 22-24 year old with the relative broad knowledge and maturity of a 1930s-1950s 18-20 year old with a HSD or 2 years of college.

[Stonewall]

No one should be arguing that a post high school education, i.e. a college degree, provides for better leadership any more than a GED.

Making certain educational requirements for things such as commissioning or earning officer rank in CAP is nothing more than a way to encourage higher levels of learning to provide for a smarter force. Anyone who doesn't support achieving higher education should have their head examined, but no one should be ridiculed or singled out for NOT achieving further education.  Are leaders born or bred?  If they're bred, how much does education from an accredited institution have to do with leadership development?  If leaders are born, then it's a moot argument.

Some of the dumbest, laziest, and non-leading mouth breathers I know have under graduate and graduate degrees.  But some of the smartest, hard working, tip of the spear leaders I know, and would follow to hell an back, boast ALL levels of formal education, from PhDs to GEDs.

[Storm Chaser]

Requiring a college degree to appoint new CAP officers would only reduce the pool of available candidates and could potentially deter some from joining. That would only make sense if the purpose is to greatly reduce the amount of CAP officers, while shifting our membership to one where the average member will be expected to join as an enlisted and progress through the NCO grades. I'm not sure how successful such a plan would be. But I can tell you that it would take many years, perhaps decades, to be fully implemented.

[Eclipse]

The levels of maturity and depth of general knowledge have changed. Whereas 4-year degrees used to concentrate on advanced learning and specific courses, a lot of it now is more generalized. The high school diploma of the 1940's was harder to get than what is awarded today. It was probably closer in maturity and knowledge value to today's AA degree, maybe even 3 years of college.  Today's Bachelor is closer to a 1950's AA or even HSD, today's Master closer to a 1930s-50s Bachelor.

Which all adds up to - requiring a degree gets you a 22-24 year old with the relative broad knowledge and maturity of a 1930s-1950s 18-20 year old with a HSD or 2 years of college.

Boy I wish I could disagree with this, but I can't.

As noted here many times, colleges these days have to teach basic math just to get kids up to freshman level, and we've seen
some of the magic spelling and grammar ability here.

Schools have had to spend so much time on "no school stuff" that many just concentrate on "testing and moving". So sad.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The levels of maturity and depth of general knowledge have changed. Whereas 4-year degrees used to concentrate on advanced learning and specific courses, a lot of it now is more generalized. The high school diploma of the 1940's was harder to get than what is awarded today. It was probably closer in maturity and knowledge value to today's AA degree, maybe even 3 years of college.  Today's Bachelor is closer to a 1950's AA or even HSD, today's Master closer to a 1930s-50s Bachelor.

Which all adds up to - requiring a degree gets you a 22-24 year old with the relative broad knowledge and maturity of a 1930s-1950s 18-20 year old with a HSD or 2 years of college.

Boy I wish I could disagree with this, but I can't.

As noted here many times, colleges these days have to teach basic math just to get kids up to freshman level, and we've seen
some of the magic spelling and grammar ability here.

Schools have had to spend so much time on "no school stuff" that many just concentrate on "testing and moving". So sad.

Sure, but today's workers are a heck of a lot more productive.

[Storm Chaser]

Sure, but today's workers are a heck of a lot more productive.

Maybe so, but I wonder how much of that is due to advances in technology.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sure, but today's workers are a heck of a lot more productive.

Maybe so, but I wonder how much of that is due to advances in technology.

Right, leading to an overall "easier" time in math, research etc. See where I'm going with this?

[Eclipse]

Sure, but today's workers are a heck of a lot more productive.

I would say that is debatable at best.

There's a lot more smoke, but where it's productive is pretty subjective.  I see a lot of >busy< people,
and people seem to be working more and more hours as work/life blends (possibly to the detriment of both),
however "more productive, I don't know".

[Storm Chaser]

These last few posts got me thinking. How does the average 18 year old of today compare to the average 18 year old of 20, 30 or 40 years ago? Sure, most are savvy with computers and other types of technology. But how do they compare in general? Do most have real work experience or skills? Do most have the maturity to make good decisions on their own? What about common sense?

Times have definitely changed. If education has been "watered down" as much as it has been suggested, then it makes sense that a 22 year old with a 4-year degree and maybe some part-time work experience would be more rounded than an 18 year old who just graduated high school.

As an example, I've noticed that my kids are not learning at school many of the things I remember learning in the same grades. If that's an indication of the education system as a whole, then I see requirements for further education beyond high school becoming more prevalent in years to come.

[Stonewall]

As an example, I've noticed that my kids are not learning at school many of the things I remember learning in the same grades. If that's an indication of the education system as a whole, then I see requirements for further education beyond high school becoming more prevalent in years to come.

Interestingly enough, I see it differently.  My kids are in the same public school system I grew up in 20+ years ago.  In fact, my 5th grade teacher (1982-83) was teaching at my kids' school until he just retired after last school year.  My wife is a public middle school science teacher in the same school district we both graduated from in 1991. 

She and I both think the curriculum the kids are experiencing today is more challenging than what we experienced 20+ years ago.  The other night she was grading a test at home for one of her advanced classes where she felt obligated to put a "good job" at the top of a paper where the student missed 7 out of 30 because it was in the top 10% of the class.  Teachers are given specific curriculum to follow to the letter with the only variables being in individual teaching styles.  She has taught 6th and 8th grade and sees no difference in the make-up, intelligence, or motivation among different grade levels.

[Eclipse]

I would say that we've devalued "real" work to an extent, and I think that much of the problem is the collapse of the
traditional american family, and far too much reliance on the school systems to "grow" our kids, this is especially
prevalent at the lower fringes of the economy and sadly with the most at-risk youth.

Cheap foreign labor means we don't fix things anymore, we replace them.  High technology and digital convergence
means whole segments and markets dissolve overnight, sometimes with little warning.  If you're at the beginning or the end
of a career involving something that's digitally destroyed, you might be OK, but someone mid-career with
an investment in education and experience might never recover.

We've been laughing about the pubs being printed - there's thousands of press technicians (I trained as an apprentice for
6 months 1 millon years ago) who are out of work with nothing even close to their skillset because of Adobe .pdf and the internet.

My kids are elementary and junior high - I've been pretty surprised on-going about how much homework they get.
I went to public and then Catholic school and for the life of me I don't remember homework until like 7th or 8th
grade.  Certainly not in early school.  My kids get homework just about every night.

We've also lost, or devalued the trades and the collapse of our manufacturing base means that the places
the "mid-tier" of our society could go to earn a living is now nearly non-existent.

Let's face it, not everyone is college material, but our economy is increasing broken into "service" and "management",
with technical service like high technology in the middle somewhere.  There's a lot of nonsense in the ether that
if you don't go to college you're doomed to food service for life, which is far from the truth, but not what is
in the background.

[Storm Chaser]

As an example, I've noticed that my kids are not learning at school many of the things I remember learning in the same grades. If that's an indication of the education system as a whole, then I see requirements for further education beyond high school becoming more prevalent in years to come.

Interestingly enough, I see it differently.  My kids are in the same public school system I grew up in 20+ years ago.  In fact, my 5th grade teacher (1982-83) was teaching at my kids' school until he just retired after last school year.  My wife is a public middle school science teacher in the same school district we both graduated from in 1991. 

She and I both think the curriculum the kids are experiencing today is more challenging than what we experienced 20+ years ago.  The other night she was grading a test at home for one of her advanced classes where she felt obligated to put a "good job" at the top of a paper where the student missed 7 out of 30 because it was in the top 10% of the class.  Teachers are given specific curriculum to follow to the letter with the only variables being in individual teaching styles.  She has taught 6th and 8th grade and sees no difference in the make-up, intelligence, or motivation among different grade levels.

I'm sure every state and school district is different and some schools are better than others. But it's not a secret that education as a whole has been lacking in the United States. A friend of mine who used to be a college professor would tell me stories about how many freshmen students didn't know how to study or write a paper effectively. He had to spend time teaching basics skills they should've learned in high school. I'm sure that's not the case everywhere, but it does happen with some frequency.

[Storm Chaser]

My kids are elementary and junior high - I've been pretty surprised on-going about how much homework they get.
I went to public and then Catholic school and for the life of me I don't remember homework until like 7th or 8th
grade.  Certainly not in early school.  My kids get homework just about every night.

That's interesting. I went to a Catholic school from K-12 and my experience was the opposite. Even in elementary school, I used to carry heavy text books and had lots of homework; more so that what my kids get now.

[Patterson]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the time spent earning a Bachelors degree is served concurrently in a commissioning program, whether it's an Academy or ROTC.  The majority of Commissioned Officers are graduates of a formal commissioning program conducted at an educational institution.  The military services basically have four years with prospective officers at the academies and colleges. During that time, they work through a structured and approved officership program.

Granted, there are exceptions to the Academy/ROTC programs, but most direct commission or OCS/OTS activities are producing a specific, technical or specialized officer (doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc) as opposed to the majority of commissioned officers who are considered generalists (capable of filling all non-technical jobs).  Further, the enlisted commissioning programs are utilized to fill immediate needs or the projected differences in total commissioned officers need as opposed to produced by the academies/ ROTC in a given year.

It also needs to be said that the practice of working toward and earning a college degree while serving as an active duty enlisted member is relatively a modern concept. It is more common now because it has been utilized as a recruiting tool. 

To answer the question of "why must officers have a degree", the simplest response would be: it's what the majority of American citizens believe makes a person intelligent, mature and responsible.  Our culture places the most emphasis on higher education, equating more classroom lectures to a persons greater ability.  The current public and secondary education systems are based on the needs of 1900, not 2013!!  Our public schools produce factory laborers and our colleges produce factory managers because the system was created with those interests as the desired end result.

[lordmonar]

It also needs to be said that the practice of working toward and earning a college degree while serving as an active duty enlisted member is relatively a modern concept. It is more common now because it has been utilized as a recruiting tool.

Modern?  CCAF was created in 1972.......So 40 years going  is "relatively a modern concept"? 

Sorry for calling you out.   But really?    We have changed uniforms four times since then!

[Patterson]

^ The CCAF offered only an Associates Degree for the first 29 years.  It was originally created to give Airman college credits they could transfer to an actual college or university when they activated their GI Bill benefits upon leaving the service.  The actual demand for the CCAF was brought on by the lack of most colleges NOT giving credit to military service members for their on the job and specialized training.

In relative terms, the establishment of the CCAF in 1972 was in itself a recruiting tool to keep Airman in the service following Vietnam and a method of rebranding itself to a younger generation that demanded more opportunities in exchange for their service.

[68w20]

^ The CCAF offered only an Associates Degree for the first 29 years.  It was originally created to give Airman college credits they could transfer to an actual another college or university when they activated their GI Bill benefits upon leaving the service.  The actual demand for the CCAF was brought on by the lack of most colleges NOT giving credit to military service members for their on the job and specialized training.

In relative terms, the establishment of the CCAF in 1972 was in itself a recruiting tool to keep Airman in the service following Vietnam and a method of rebranding itself to a younger generation that demanded more opportunities in exchange for their service.

FTFY

[flyboy53]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the time spent earning a Bachelors degree is served concurrently in a commissioning program, whether it's an Academy or ROTC.  The majority of Commissioned Officers are graduates of a formal commissioning program conducted at an educational institution.  The military services basically have four years with prospective officers at the academies and colleges. During that time, they work through a structured and approved officership program.

Granted, there are exceptions to the Academy/ROTC programs, but most direct commission or OCS/OTS activities are producing a specific, technical or specialized officer (doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc) as opposed to the majority of commissioned officers who are considered generalists (capable of filling all non-technical jobs).  Further, the enlisted commissioning programs are utilized to fill immediate needs or the projected differences in total commissioned officers need as opposed to produced by the academies/ ROTC in a given year.

It also needs to be said that the practice of working toward and earning a college degree while serving as an active duty enlisted member is relatively a modern concept. It is more common now because it has been utilized as a recruiting tool. 

To answer the question of "why must officers have a degree", the simplest response would be: it's what the majority of American citizens believe makes a person intelligent, mature and responsible.  Our culture places the most emphasis on higher education, equating more classroom lectures to a persons greater ability.  The current public and secondary education systems are based on the needs of 1900, not 2013!!  Our public schools produce factory laborers and our colleges produce factory managers because the system was created with those interests as the desired end result.

Good comments but not quite accurate.

Enlisted personnel having college degrees or some level of college education has been a factor since WW II. The prevalence of that statistic now is more in keeping with the All Volunteer Forces Concept that followed the draft which ended with the drawdown from the Vietnam War. Of my era in the Air Force (post Vietnam), about 10 percent of the enlisted force (myself included) had some level of college up to bachelors degrees. Two percent had masters degrees and less than one percent had doctorates. In my era, it was more about a lot of college graduates who couldn't find work and opted instead to join the military. At the same time there were a lot more junior enlisted types that entered the military already married. The outcome is now reflected in part by the declining membership rolls of a lot of veterans groups because those same married veterans left the service and attempted to move to the workforce or on to higher college degrees as they worked to achieve their life goals.

In my era of the Air Force -- or at least the program I was in -- it was expected that you would have some level of college education. I had a bachelors degree when everyone of my other enlisted counterparts had between two and four years of college. I became an exception to the policy when I earned a masters degree.

A 2007 study by the US Department of Education found that 4 percent of current college students were either veterans or current active duty military members who were pursing college degrees.

These are the current statistics as reported by the Air Force Personnel Center:

Officer Academic Education
•60.5% of officers have advanced or professional degrees
•48.6% have master's degree
•10.2% have professional degrees
•1.7% have doctorate degrees

Company Grade Officers' Academic Education
•36.0% of company grade officers have advanced degrees
•27.9% have master's degree
•7.6% have professional degrees
•0.5% have doctorate degrees

Field Grade Officers' Academic Education
•91.7% of field grade officers have advanced degrees
•75.7% have master's degree
•12.7% have professional degrees
•3.3% have doctorate degrees

Enlisted Academic Education
•64.7% completed some college
•22.1% have associate's degrees
•7.1% have bachelor's degrees
•1.3% have master's degree
•0.011% have professional degrees

Airman Tier
•82.21% have some college
•4.294% have associate's degrees
•3.050% have bachelor's degrees
•0.057% have master's degree
•0.002% have professional degrees

Noncommissioned Officer Tier
•60.84% completed some college
•31.910% have associate's degrees
•6.368% have bachelor's degrees
•0.779% have master's degree
•0.009% have professional degrees

Senior NCO Tier
•16.53% completed some college
•52.635% have associate's degrees
•23.545% have bachelor's degrees
•7.225% have master's degree
•0.052% have professional degrees

If there is a trend in the CAP to start requiring some level of college to be eligible for officer status, it is in line with what is going on with other uniformed services. Even the Army now has a bare minimum commissioning requirement (for reserve officers) to hold an associates degree at the very least.

Certainly we are volunteers, but I don't think its just added requirements to block officer status, it's in keeping with a trend that is even seen in not-for-profits. Ever notice how many not-for-profit board are made up of college graduates? If it does become a requirement, then consider it a means to move our program into a higher paradigm of professionalism.

[Eclipse]

If there is a trend in the CAP to start requiring some level of college to be eligible for officer status, it is in line with what is going on with other uniformed services. Even the Army now has a bare minimum commissioning requirement (for reserve officers) to hold an associates degree at the very least.

For starters, we are not a uniformed service.

Certainly we are volunteers, but I don't think its just added requirements to block officer status, it's in keeping with a trend that is even seen in not-for-profits. Ever notice how many not-for-profit board are made up of college graduates? If it does become a requirement, then consider it a means to move our program into a higher paradigm of professionalism.

Sorry, it would mean a move towards more affectation vs. performance and another reason for people to not bother.

[Storm Chaser]

If there is a trend in the CAP to start requiring some level of college to be eligible for officer status, it is in line with what is going on with other uniformed services. Even the Army now has a bare minimum commissioning requirement (for reserve officers) to hold an associates degree at the very least.

Certainly we are volunteers, but I don't think its just added requirements to block officer status, it's in keeping with a trend that is even seen in not-for-profits. Ever notice how many not-for-profit board are made up of college graduates? If it does become a requirement, then consider it a means to move our program into a higher paradigm of professionalism.

First of all, it wouldn't be a "trend" in CAP, but a change in policy. One could say that this is a step towards "professionalizing" the CAP Officer Corps. However, since over 90% (I'm guessing) of senior members are officers, the only way something like this can even be considered is if CAP shifts its membership from one where the average member is an officer, to one were the average member is an enlisted. New members would be expected to join as enlisted, unless they met the "extra" requirements prescribed to receive an appointment as a CAP officer. A change like that (the shift in membership) would take years.

[NCRblues]

I'm sorry, but saying 82% of airman have "some college" is really just the AF padding the numbers. Each and every airman who graduates gets college credit for BMT and then gets more for tech school. As I look at my basic and tech school certificates, I was credited with 30 credit hours for showing up to lackland and not getting the boot. Unrealistic statistic.

[Eclipse]

First of all, it wouldn't be a "trend" in CAP, but a change in policy. One could say that this is a step towards "professionalizing" the CAP Officer Corps. However, since over 90% (I'm guessing) of senior members are officers, the only way something like this can even be considered is if CAP shifts its membership from one where the average member is an officer, to one were the average member is an enlisted. New members would be expected to join as enlisted, unless they met the "extra" requirements prescribed to receive an appointment as a CAP officer. A change like that (the shift in membership) would take years.

I don't see how it is practically possible.

You join the service, sign a contract, and get promised all manner of "potentials" and "most likely", then if things don't work our, you are free to be disgruntled in
your new job as assigned by your commander, etc.  In CAP people are promised things, they don't work out, and they quit.

Further, we don't have the manning to slot people into officer / enlisted roles by 2/3rds, especially in the paradigm that they can just quit, change status, or "swap jobs with Jim"
on a whim.

When a military service needs more people for whatever roles they need them, they go and get them, or grow them.  If the economy is good, they ramp the financial incentives up
and the initial qualifications down.  That or in times of war or crisis, conscript people.

CAP isn't even capable of recruiting members today to fulfill their most basic org charts, or provide depth at any of those positions, let alone start putting things in place
that would disenfranchise anyone or make recruiting even harder.

[Storm Chaser]

First of all, it wouldn't be a "trend" in CAP, but a change in policy. One could say that this is a step towards "professionalizing" the CAP Officer Corps. However, since over 90% (I'm guessing) of senior members are officers, the only way something like this can even be considered is if CAP shifts its membership from one where the average member is an officer, to one were the average member is an enlisted. New members would be expected to join as enlisted, unless they met the "extra" requirements prescribed to receive an appointment as a CAP officer. A change like that (the shift in membership) would take years.

I don't see how it is practically possible.

Setting the whole degree "requirement" aside, I don't think it would be impossible to change the composition of our membership. I do think it would be difficult and take many years to implement.

This is why; CAP is probably one of very few (if any) organizations where almost all its members can (and are even expected to) become officers in the organization. Since officers, by the very definition, are expected to have authority and/or higher responsibilities within the organization, do we really need over 90% of our adult membership to be "officers"? If the expectation was for new members to join as Airmen or even NCOs, would that really deter people from joining? I mean, would those who join because they want to work with cadets or are interested in aviation or want work in emergency services be discouraged because their first grade insignia would have stripes instead of bars? I would venture to say 'no'.

In that same framework, those receiving appointments as officers would manage, direct and command; while there rest of the membership would execute and supervise. That's not much different from any other volunteer and non-profit organization. The biggest challenge, in my opinion, would be shifting from the current model to the new. If we do it by attrition, it would take many years, even decades, for the membership model to shift from one composed primarily by officers, to one composed primarily by enlisted. If, on the other hand, a more direct approach was taken, for example, converting current officer grades to NCO equivalents or restricting further promotions due to more stringent requirements, that would most likely have a negative effect on our membership, with many members probably leaving the organization.

There's no easy way of doing this, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree, but there's significant risk, and "clearing out the deadweight" could take a decade, and would likely lead to unacceptable attrition.

To start, how many members currently wearing silver oaks, eagles, or stars would give them up without significant push-back?  It takes 10+ years
of fairly hard charging to get to the silver oaks, and then more stars have to align to get the eagles or higher.  These esteemed and valued members
are the ones running the highest levels of policy and are not likely to just place an order at Vanguard for stripes.

If you grandfather in existing officers, then you don't fix things until they quit, seriously that's got to be 10+ years if not more, and now you've created
another class of members who are "special" on top of the "NCO / officer" or "worker / commander" caste system.  And if you cut people off at the wrong
point, the attrition could cripple the organization. We're routinely told how important this unimportant grade is.

I think you've have an easier time simply abolishing grade altogether, change courtesies so that only those wearing the CC pin >over< the nametag
are saluted, and then everyone is treated fairly and the same.  All authority stems from staff posting, as it is anyway,  and we can then
move on and never have the conversation again.

When we're talking about initial training, membership costs, or other policies, it's not a big deal to make the FNGs do things the seasoned members
don't have to, but something as visible and misunderstood as grade in CAP has to be fair across the board or people won't tolerate it.

[Storm Chaser]

^ I don't disagree with you either. That said, do you think that's were National is heading by approving this NCO program as the new "backbone" of CAP? Or should we really believe it's all about allowing current and future NCOs to promote within CAP?

[Eclipse]

^ I don't disagree with you either. That said, do you think that's were National is heading by approving this NCO program as the new "backbone" of CAP? Or should we really believe it's all about allowing current and future NCOs to promote within CAP?

Honestly? I don't know where NHQ is heading, or if they've even got a flight plan in mind.

I think this started as a way to allow other-service NCOs to stripe-promote in CAP, even though there's really no point to that, and evolved from there
without thought to the unintended consequences of creating a caste system in a volunteer organization, or implying via the "backbone rehtoric"
that one group does, or will do, more of the hard work then another group.

Again, when the math doesn't work, there's only two other options.

In this case, unless the NCO "program" is nothing more then stripes instead of metal, there's simply no way to implement it in a meaningful way without
radically changing CAP as it exists today, and those radical changes pur the entire organization at risk with no mission-focused benefit whatsoever.

Seriously, just take a look at the real-world mission of CAP, find the many and varied chips, cracks, and dents in the tri-prop, then ask yourself
which of them is "fixed" or "made better" by the simple act of a member wearing stripes instead of metal, or having a sheepskin hanging on their
wall (per se).

As someone who is struggling to find manpower to execute real-world missions, at the most basic level of actual interest, I have all sorts of conversations
regarding the best course to fix things, and grade and degrees never come up.

[Ned]

Part of the problem inherent in these discussions is an acute lack of data.

Since we don't track it, CAP has no idea what percentage of our members have post-secondary or technical education.  We can all make guesses or even do some unscientific polling here.  But until we have some idea of how many officers already have some college under their belts, we are spitting in the wind when we try to predict how implementing a college requirement would affect the organization.

This is exactly like the endless discussion we get into when talking about uniforms.  We have no real idea how many members are restricted to corporate uniforms by weight or grooming restrictions.  Some, like Bob, believe it might even be a majority of our seniors.  Others think it is a minority.  But nobody really knows.

It sounds like it is time for us to survey our membership for some of this information that we could use to inform policy decisions.  It shouldn't be too hard to set a survey into eServices.  Maybe we could even allow completition to substitute for safety currency one month.   

There are limitations, of course.  Members may not be entirely accurate when reporting things like weight or academic achievement.  There are probably ways to minimize that problem, but we would need to give it some serious thought.

So what information should we ask for in our survey?

Let me start:

1.  High School Graduate?
2.  _______ (quarter / semester) units without a degree
3.  AA Degree (Date Awarded: _______ Major: ______)
4.  BA / BS Degree (Date Awarded: _____Major _____)
5.  Professional Degree (Type: ________  Date Awarded: ___________)
6.  MA / MS Degree  (Date Awarded:  ____________ Major: __________)
7.  Doctorate Degree (Type:  _________Date Awarded: _____________  Major__________)
8.  Foreign / Other  (Type:____________ Date Awarded: ____________  Major__________)
9.  Technical Degree / Certificate:  (Type: ___________ Date Awarded:  _________)
10.  Professional Licenses / Certifications / Teaching Credentials: __________________)

11.  Height:  __________

12.  Weight: __________

What else would it help to know? 

Are there counterveiling privacy or other concerns that make it a bad idea to even ask for this information?

How would the membership react to such a survey?

Should this be a separate thread?

[Eclipse]

Since we don't track it, CAP has no idea what percentage of our members have post-secondary or technical education.  We can all make guesses or even do some unscientific polling here.  But until we have some idea of how many officers already have some college under their belts, we are spitting in the wind when we try to predict how implementing a college requirement would affect the organization.

Why do we care?

CAP is about "What have you done for me today?" not "What did you do ten years ago?".

We don't have the means to send people to college, like the military does, nor the means to only recruit certain segments, like the military does,
nor even to control what people do within CAP (at our current manning).

It's all irrelevant when the CC's have to be begged to do the jobs at checkbox minimums and a large percentage of units are at risk for closure
if one personality quits.  Not to mention when we have the same people slotted in 5 jobs at 3 different levels.

[Storm Chaser]

It would be interesting to see the results of that survey, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. First, some of that information is already available in eServices, although since it's not required, it may not be there or up to date for every member. Second, I'm not sure how that that information would help establish policy.

Let's take the uniform/weight and height issue as an example. In my opinion, it's irrelevant whether the part of our membership that can't wear the Air Force-style uniform is a majority, a minority or it's split evenly. The fact is that we have a sector of our membership that is not allowed to wear one type of uniforms. How do we fix that (assuming it needs fixing)? We either establish more stringent weight and height requirements for all members (something we can't really afford and that could be detrimental to the organization) or we have one set of uniforms that EVERYONE can wear. Any other alternative continues to segregate our membership into those who "can" and those who "can't".

I think the same applies to college degrees. The only reason to even consider them as a requirement is to reduce the number of officers. Something that only makes sense if we move to an enlisted based membership. And as it has been discussed already, getting there would be very challenging and would take a long time. I can't see any other valid reasons to require a degree, other than for those specific specialties that may need one (legal, medical, etc.).

[Eclipse]

In terms of the accuracy of what's in eServices.

Adult members have been required, and cadets encouraged to upload a photo.

Care to guess the percentage on that?  I'd guess no more then 1/2 are compliant.

[Storm Chaser]

I don't think we have to guess since NHQ should have access to that information.

[Eclipse]

I don't think we have to guess since NHQ should have access to that information.

Agreed, yet no action.

No pic should be no access to eservices.  Required is required.  And of course NHQ's response would be "Is that really the most important thing on the plate?"

Of course not, but it's required, etc., etc.

[Майор Хаткевич]

In terms of the accuracy of what's in eServices.

A lot of members who are quite obviously out of H/W Standards are always magically JUST heavy enough and JUST tall enough to be "legal" in Blues. Forget the fact that they are JUST not quite that tall, and JUST quite not that light.

[AirAux]

Is it just possible that CAP has served it's purpose and is an expense that is no longer necessary?  Aerospace education is not really needed anymore.  The public have accepted air travel and the need for an Air Force.  Aeronautical engineers are out of work.  The Air Force has more than enough good recruits.  Our cadets are few and far between when you think on a national size.  Search and rescue is down to a minimum.  Average squadron size is between 14 and 17 with probably 10 to 12 active at any time.  As Eclipse has pointed out in the past, this is not a fully functional or staffed squadron by CAP requirements today.  CAP requires over 100 reports a year.  The few working are generating reports and little else.  Fewer search and rescue missions, more lose their qualifications by not being able to conveniently recert.  We do some good in our Homeland security mission, but could that be done by drones?  We get very little support from the Air Force anymore.  I am sure the other grayhairs remember the C-130 and C-141 flights we used to routinely get as an example?  Most of our basic summer encampments are no longer on Air Force Bases.  Are we more expensive than we are worth?  A $24,000,000.00 annual budget in these times is problematic for an organization of 60,000 members.  Have we outlived our usefulness?  Are we dinasaurs?

[Eclipse]

Is it just possible that CAP has served it's purpose and is an expense that is no longer necessary?

(snip)

  Have we outlived our usefulness?  Are we dinosaurs?

It's a painful, legitimate question. I say "no", but not unequivocally, and would have to ask about ROI, because there are many
"useful" things that no longer give a good ROI.

We do many things, some well, but few consistently or in a way that scales or can really be depended on, and almost always
because of the brute force effort of a small percentage of the total membership.

[Mitchell 1969]

It shouldn't be too hard to set a survey into eServices.  Maybe we could even allow completition to substitute for safety currency one month.   

Oh, the HUMANITY!

[Al Sayre]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that CAP members have a higher average education level than the general population, and that there are a lot of folks out there with college degrees.  Let us not forget that CAP in general and flying especially are fairly expensive activities, and people who don't have disposable incomes are less likely to join and remain active members for very long.  As I think about my own former Squadron, out of about 25 active senior members, I can only think of 3 or 4 that did not have a college degree of some kind, and 2 of those were college students...

[Elihu.Lowery]

Is it just possible that CAP has served it's purpose and is an expense that is no longer necessary?  Aerospace education is not really needed anymore.  The public have accepted air travel and the need for an Air Force.  Aeronautical engineers are out of work.  The Air Force has more than enough good recruits.  Our cadets are few and far between when you think on a national size.  Search and rescue is down to a minimum.  Average squadron size is between 14 and 17 with probably 10 to 12 active at any time.  As Eclipse has pointed out in the past, this is not a fully functional or staffed squadron by CAP requirements today.  CAP requires over 100 reports a year.  The few working are generating reports and little else.  Fewer search and rescue missions, more lose their qualifications by not being able to conveniently recert.  We do some good in our Homeland security mission, but could that be done by drones?  We get very little support from the Air Force anymore.  I am sure the other grayhairs remember the C-130 and C-141 flights we used to routinely get as an example?  Most of our basic summer encampments are no longer on Air Force Bases.  Are we more expensive than we are worth?  A $24,000,000.00 annual budget in these times is problematic for an organization of 60,000 members.  Have we outlived our usefulness?  Are we dinasaurs?

Well, the same could be said for most volunteer organizations as there are well funded government agencies that can and/or do most of the same missions. But, still there are those people like us that want to do our part, that want to help as best we can without having to join/rejoin the military or try for a government job just so we can be of service. CAP's membership numbers has remained steady over the past decade and in fact CAP has grown from the 40,000's that it was in back when I first joined in 1993. So, things are not quite to the point of us all just turning out the lights, locking the doors and going home. But, we must remember that there are many other volunteer organizations to compete with us for membership; just in the volunteer military auxiliaries alone their is of course the Air Force Aux (us), the Coast Guard Aux, and many State Guards/Defense Forces that serve as an Army Auxiliary (Well at least for the Army National Guard). At 60,000 plus members we are not doing too bad and as for the fact there are only a few active members at any given time the same holds true for all volunteer groups, from the Boy/Girl Scouts (I have children in both, there are very few active adults willing to be active) to church groups, to the Red Cross (I was a volunteer, it could be very lonely manning a shelter do to lack of volunteers), and even the State Guards which have no membership fees are hurting for volunteers they may have 1000 members on the books for a Battalion but only halve that many are active. It's just the nature of volunteer organizations to have a few pull the weight of many as we tend to rotate in & out with time. I myself have been very active with CAP for several years then will burn out; become inactive, and then will return active again after after a break of a few years.  My grade progression has gone as follows: SM, FO, TFO, 1Lt, SM, 1LT, SM, Capt. but I luv CAP and keep returning and as long as we all keep returning there will be a CAP (I have no idea as to what missions we will have in the future but I am sure CAP will be around awhile). 

[Elihu.Lowery]

When it comes to the idea that to be a volunteer Officer in CAP one must have a Degree; I believe it would be an over requirement. I do however believe that it is reasonable to require that all members complete the Officer Course before being promoted to an Officer.
As for the argument that a Degree makes someone a better leader I would have to disagree. Does a degree mean your better educated and more knowledgeable? I would hope so otherwise I wasted a lot of time and money earning mine. But, did it make me a better leader then I was already from being a NCO in the military after serving for ten years? No, I do not believe it did. 

[Eclipse]

When it comes to the idea that to be a volunteer Officer in CAP one must have a Degree; I believe it would be an over requirement. I do however believe that it is reasonable to require that all members complete the Officer Course before being promoted to an Officer.

This would be reasonable and appropriate, not much different in context then OCS or salutin' school for professionals.

If CAP doesn't think that's enough, raise that bar - make it OBC plus UCC and/or some TIG (or other). At least that provides the ability to
continue to grow leaders internally.

The military and business have the ability to identify future leaders and then fund whatever education, be it internal, technical, or university
that they want that person to have. And in the meantime that organization is also providing the person with a livelihood.

CAP has neither option and never will.

[Ned]

The military and business have the ability to identify future leaders and then fund whatever education, be it internal, technical, or university
that they want that person to have. And in the meantime that organization is also providing the person with a livelihood.

The military does not fund the college or university education for the great majority of their officers.

Unless you go to an academy or receive a full ROTC scholarship, you are responsible for your own (pre requisite) education. (There is a small ROTC stipend for the last two years, however).

Similarly, the DA's office did not pay for my law school.  (I am, however appreciative of all of the taxpayers' support of the University of California.)

[Eclipse]

The TA program can cover all eligible service personnel for their college expenses.  I highly doubt the advanced degrees
of most of our national military leaders were paid for out of their own pockets.

It is also quite common for private business to fund degree programs for their employees.

My point, of course, was not statistics, but the fact that these are options which are available to the military and business and not CAP.

The ROI with CAP only works when we can leverage what people bring to the table, and/or when we can train them internally
at (essentially) zero cost.  Move that line much in any direction and the math starts to break because we start costing what professional
resources who are more agile and better equipped cost.  The more agile being the key factor.  The way NGO are kicking our FPPOC in the DR
space is getting embarrassing.

Start piling on unnecessary and irrelevant pre-reqs to working for free and you will find yourself with a highly educated org chart with no names on it.

[abdsp51]

The TA program can cover all eligible service personnel for their college expenses.

It is also quite common for private business to fund degree programs for their employees.

True.  But the criteria and percentage it covers is different between the services.  And it won't always cover books.

[MisterCD]

After ten years of college education (undergrad and graduate) I toss out the view that the education provided me with tools, knowledge, and preparation for a career in a certain field. It does not, however, focus on educating or training that person to be well-versed in the arts of leadership, interpersonal relations, or effective management. Some of these skills are acquired with experiences over the course of school, but these are secondary or tertiary to their chosen path of study. Is a person without formal education a superior to a person with formal education in regards to leadership? The safe answer is "it depends." A major deciding factor is experience with career and life, along with a dash of self-reflection and introspective. Every leader stumbles at some point, but good ones will evaluate and modify behaviors or actions to improve performance. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

[Eclipse]

After ten years of college education (undergrad and graduate) I toss out the view that the education provided me with tools, knowledge, and preparation for a career in a certain field. It does not, however, focus on educating or training that person to be well-versed in the arts of leadership, interpersonal relations, or effective management. Some of these skills are acquired with experiences over the course of school, but these are secondary or tertiary to their chosen path of study. Is a person without formal education a superior to a person with formal education in regards to leadership? The safe answer is "it depends." A major deciding factor is experience with career and life, along with a dash of self-reflection and introspective. Every leader stumbles at some point, but good ones will evaluate and modify behaviors or actions to improve performance. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

I agree completely, which is why internal mentoring would have so much more value then college degrees.

One only needs to look to Wall Street to see what highly-educated men who lack ethics and integrity can accomplish.
Pretty much any adult capable of writing a check and competing the forms can be trained the technical skills to
be valuable in CAP, and with the proper mentoring and experience, most people can be indoctrinated (for lack of a better term)
into the understanding of the hows and whys it takes to be a leader in CAP.

The problem is that we do a bare-minimum, check-box job on the former, and just about ignore the latter.  Then we look at
each other and ask "How did we get here?"

[Storm Chaser]

In addition to raising the bar to becoming a CAP officer, I would propose that we move away from the expectation that everyone who joins CAP should become an officer. That is unheard of in other organizations; commercial, military, non-profit, etc. Why can only those who demonstrate appropriate potential in becoming good officers, after extensive training, be selected and promoted to 2d Lt. As it stands right now, virtually anyone who completes Level 1, six months as a member, is active and helps the squadron in any way can and will be promoted to 2d Lt. However, not everyone is suitable for being an officer, whether in CAP or in other organizations.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

In addition to raising the bar to becoming a CAP officer, I would propose that we move away from the expectation that everyone who joins CAP should become an officer.

I always thought it was odd that almost everyone was an officer in CAP.  When I first thought of joining ('93), I fully expected to wear stripes.

When I told my Army veteran dad about it he said "sounds like you've got more Chiefs than you do Indians."  He also couldn't fathom that wearing stripes was a privilege reserved for the few and that they couldn't promote to more stripes.  He said, "you're telling me that the only way for a Sergeant to get promoted is to be a Lieutenant?"

[Storm Chaser]

+1

That didn't seem so odd during my first few years in CAP only because I viewed CAP officers as the "chiefs" and cadets as the "indians". However, as I've come to discover in more resent years that there's a whole sector of our membership that doesn't work with cadets, the whole idea that virtually everyone is an officer seems odd at best.

(edited for grammar)

[Ned]

  I highly doubt the advanced degrees of most of our national military leaders were paid for out of their own pockets.

Undoubtedly true, but we haven't been talking about "advanced degrees," have we?  We have been talking about undergraduate degrees as a possible prerequisite for officer status.  And which the military does not fund for the majority of their officers.

It is also quite common for private business to fund degree programs for their employees.

That's good then, isn't it?  Doesn't that mean that since most CAP members work for private businesses it would be "quite common" for them to be able to get their degrees funded?

My point, of course, was not statistics, but the fact that these are options which are available to the military and business and not CAP.

My point, of course, was similar but apparently opposite.  The same options that are available for the military and business for that initial degree are available to CAP members.

Start piling on unnecessary and irrelevant pre-reqs to working for free and you will find yourself with a highly educated org chart with no names on it.

Instead of the "highly uneducated org chart with no names on it" like we have now?   

Seriously, it is clear that reasonable minds differ on this, but ultimately we are discussing, at most, where on the continuum to set the formal education requirement for officers.  If it were really just about filling the org chart we could eliminate the GED requirement and reach out to some additional members.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not a proponent of making a bachelor's degree a requirement to becoming a CAP officer, at least not with our current membership model (that may only work if officers were fewer and focused on managing, directing and commanding, and most CAP members were either enlisted or warrant officers). I'm more interested in raising the bar and increasing training requirements for officers. That said, if CAP really wanted to establish an education requirement to be come a 2d Lt, wouldn't an associate's degree be a better compromise?

Let me clarify that I'm not proposing this, but just brainstorming out-loud.

[Shuman 14]

The military and business have the ability to identify future leaders and then fund whatever education, be it internal, technical, or university
that they want that person to have. And in the meantime that organization is also providing the person with a livelihood.

The military does not fund the college or university education for the great majority of their officers.

Unless you go to an academy or receive a full ROTC scholarship, you are responsible for your own (pre requisite) education. (There is a small ROTC stipend for the last two years, however).

Similarly, the DA's office did not pay for my law school.  (I am, however appreciative of all of the taxpayers' support of the University of California.)

With the various Services' Tuition Assistance programs (which are open to Officers and cover up to masters Degrees) you'd be surprised how education the Military is actually paying for.

[Eclipse]

That's good then, isn't it?  Doesn't that mean that since most CAP members work for private businesses it would be "quite common" for them to be able to get their degrees funded?

No.

Interesting model - require something irrelevant to the actual operations, and then light a candle hoping someone else will pay the bill for it.

[Eclipse]

If it were really just about filling the org chart we could eliminate the GED requirement and reach out to some additional members.

A high school diploma is still considered the minimum requirement to function in society, and is funded by society..  A college degree isn't, even a little.

Therefore a requirement for a high school diploma or equivalent is appropriate, college degree isn't.

However since a high school diploma isn't required to be a member, only for officer appointment, there's already no issue with filling the org chart with
people who haven't completed even that level of education.

[SJFedor]

If it were really just about filling the org chart we could eliminate the GED requirement and reach out to some additional members.

A high school diploma is still considered the minimum requirement to function in society, and is funded by society..  A college degree isn't, even a little.

Therefore a requirement for a high school diploma or equivalent is appropriate, college degree isn't.

However since a high school diploma isn't required to be a member, only for officer appointment, there's already no issue with filling the org chart with
people who haven't completed even that level of education.

Interesting. I just recently saw a CAP 1st Lt who's "still working on his GED". Obviously his unit commander didn't read 35-3.

[a2capt]

As far as a high school diploma, I have yet to ever encounter anyplace that needed actual proof that one exists.
Everywhere I've seen the question ones word for it was all that was required.

[Garibaldi]

As far as a high school diploma, I have yet to ever encounter anyplace that needed actual proof that one exists.
Everywhere I've seen the question ones word for it was all that was required.

I've applied to a couple companies that wanted to see one.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The few jobs I had to fill out paperwork on, GED/HS Diploma was a question you checked yes for and moved on.

[SARDOC]

As far as a high school diploma, I have yet to ever encounter anyplace that needed actual proof that one exists.
Everywhere I've seen the question ones word for it was all that was required.

I currently work for a Federal Contractor doing background investigations... I frequently go to high schools and colleges to verify education.

[ol'fido]

As a commander, I seldom notice the grade of the person I'm dealing with other than when their promotion time comes around. I don't deal with officers or NCO's( and I do have NCO's in my group). I deal with Senior Members. I have had non-prior service members who have no higher education become some of the best CAP members I have ever dealt with. I have had others who were not only field grade CAP members but also simultaneously USAF field grade officers that I have basically had to fire.

The idea that one needs to be college graduate in order to be a CAP officer seems to me to be an attempt to objectively categorize people by things you can put down on paper. While this can be an indicator in the larger institution of CAP as a whole, when you are dealing with people week after week for years in local units, you tend to know who your "go to guys" are and who your "Colonel Blimps" are without having to check their diploma.

[Ned]

If it were really just about filling the org chart we could eliminate the GED requirement and reach out to some additional members.

A high school diploma is still considered the minimum requirement to function in society, and is funded by society..  A college degree isn't, even a little.

Now you're arguing just to argue.  You don't even believe that. 

Let's see if I can quote a wise man:

Today's Bachelor is closer to a 1950's AA or even HSD, today's Master closer to a 1930s-50s Bachelor.

Which all adds up to - requiring a degree gets you a 22-24 year old with the relative broad knowledge and maturity of a 1930s-1950s 18-20 year old with a HSD or 2 years of college.

Boy I wish I could disagree with this, but I can't.

As noted here many times, colleges these days have to teach basic math just to get kids up to freshman level, and we've seen
some of the magic spelling and grammar ability here.

Therefore a requirement for a high school diploma or equivalent is appropriate, college degree isn't.

However since a high school diploma isn't required to be a member, only for officer appointment, there's already no issue with filling the org chart with
people who haven't completed even that level of education.

Except that not even a high school diploma is required for officer status; a GED will suffice.  See CAPR 35-5 and KB #478.

And if a high school diploma is worth far less than if was in the 1930s through the 1950s, what do you suppose a GED is worth today comparatively?

Again, the point of this discussion is to try to determine if CAP would benefit from setting our educational standards for officership a little higher than a GED. 

[Panache]

In addition to raising the bar to becoming a CAP officer, I would propose that we move away from the expectation that everyone who joins CAP should become an officer.

+1.  I'm still of the firm belief that only those in command and higher-level (Group and higher) staff officer positions should hold grades of 2nd Lieutenant and higher.

[Flying Pig]

If I rejoin, I think I'll just wear my ribbons!   

[SARDOC]

If I rejoin, I think I'll just wear my ribbons! 

You might want to wear pants too.

[Storm Chaser]

If I rejoin, I think I'll just wear my ribbons! 

You might want to wear pants too.

And a shirt to put your ribbons on. 

[Flying Pig]

I fully intend to follow the CPPT guidelines