College Degree =/= leadership

[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!