College Degree =/= leadership

[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.