Senior Members - College experience?

[Dragoon]

Of course, the survey isn't particularly valid for CAP as a whole - there is a correlation between education level and internet use.  So this group is probably skewed toward  the high end of the education scale.

[gallagheria]

Well, I see no problem with allowing associates degree recipients to get a commission. Even the Army allows this. That is what the military junior colleges are for, and same with National Guard commission--usually only requiring 90 hours.

My whole point is we should mirror the Armed Forces where practical if we want more support. Of course, if the CAP is bursting with too many officers and the BA requirement didn't work, then by all means up it to master's and so on.

[LTC_Gadget]

Of course, the survey isn't particularly valid for CAP as a whole - there is a correlation between education level and internet use.  So this group is probably skewed toward  the high end of the education scale.

The same thought occurred to me yesterday.  That's probably as 'telling' as anything. 

Our first 'degree of separation' from the general public is our membership in CAP.  The general public doesn't 'volunteer' or, in deference to other threads, choose to be an 'unpaid professional' anything, so we're already kinda different to start with. 

The 'second degree of separation' is our apparent interest in technology, possession of higher-than-average analytical thinking skills, and higher-than-average verbal and writing skills, and as a generalized group, those of us here are already in the upper percentiles.. It's the rest of the herd that we're worried about; or as I like to call it, the great unwashed that I sometimes have to stand in line with at Wal-Mart..

V/R,

[Flying Pig]

OK...then how does that explain me being here

[jimmydeanno]

It's the rest of the herd that we're worried about; or as I like to call it, the great unwashed that I sometimes have to stand in line with at Wal-Mart..

Par done ez moy? Wha chu takin' 'bout?

[BillB]

A.S. Criminal Justice
B.A. Journalism
B.S. Public Administration
M.A. History, minor in Journalism Management

[Dragoon]

Since durn near everyone in CAP is an officer, any education requirement on being an officer would remove large chunks of our membership.  Or at least limit them to being "SMs for life."  I don't think that would go over very well.

If we change CAP so that everyone ISN'T an officer, then requirements could come in to play.  But first we'd have to decide what officers do, and what NCOs/EMs/Flight Officers do.  If they all do the same thing, then rank doesn't matter, and why do we care if someone's got college or not?

Unless you just want some folks, who have college to get saluted by their buddies who do the same job but don't have college.  I think that's a non-starter.

Wwe've gone round and round on grade structure with no clear workable concept.  There are unique challenges in a volunteer organization the we would have to address.

For example, if we decide only officers can command units, then we'd have to close down any squadron that didn't have an officer.  So if no one met the educational requirement,  that unit would be out of luck.

And since our members ar choose to give up a command job and go back to being the squadron assistant supply "officer", would they give their bars back and put on stripes?  Or be an 0-2 doing E-3 work?


It makes sense to first figure out a grade structure that fits the organization, and then figure out the requirements for each grade.

[captrncap]

Officer, NCO, whatever --- that and $2 dollars gets me on the bus.

We keep discussing it like it matters. We are not Military Officers. We are civilians. Our civilian equivalent would be like Assistant Manager, Manager, Director, etc.

A Director who good at his/her job may only have a HS Diploma but he is still in charge.

We respect the C&C of the Air Force but the more we try to fit our "square peg" organization into the "round hole" the less time we have to fix the really important things like recruitment, training, retention, serving the community, mentoring the cadets.

I'm not against getting grade but it does not mean anything except how hard that people is commitment to their professional development (I know that exceptions apply).

[RogueLeader]

Bo you realize that one-half of the Bachelor types are listed as B.S.?


Just Wondering

[LTC_Gadget]

Bo you realize that one-half of the Bachelor types are listed as B.S.?

Soooo, are you trying to imply that that makes them qualified/eligible for appointment to corporate staff? 

[ddelaney103]

I guess the big question is - what do we want grade to represent?

While some say it doesn't mean anything, many get cranky about getting rid of it.  You'll also hear grumbles when changes are suggested that might limit their ability to promote.

I think using it in a manner different than the Real Military leads to confusion without many benefits in return.  Substituting an all ranks "Auxiliarist Badge" or grade insignia outside of current AF usage could eliminate a point of contention with the military and perhaps bring us closer to uniformity.

[DNall]

Since durn near everyone in CAP is an officer, any education requirement on being an officer would remove large chunks of our membership.  Or at least limit them to being "SMs for life."  I don't think that would go over very well.

If we change CAP so that everyone ISN'T an officer, then requirements could come in to play.  But first we'd have to decide what officers do, and what NCOs/EMs/Flight Officers do.  If they all do the same thing, then rank doesn't matter, and why do we care if someone's got college or not?

Unless you just want some folks, who have college to get saluted by their buddies who do the same job but don't have college.  I think that's a non-starter.

Wwe've gone round and round on grade structure with no clear workable concept.  There are unique challenges in a volunteer organization the we would have to address.

For example, if we decide only officers can command units, then we'd have to close down any squadron that didn't have an officer.  So if no one met the educational requirement,  that unit would be out of luck.

And since our members ar choose to give up a command job and go back to being the squadron assistant supply "officer", would they give their bars back and put on stripes?  Or be an 0-2 doing E-3 work?


It makes sense to first figure out a grade structure that fits the organization, and then figure out the requirements for each grade.

By definition, we'd be talking about having a grade category other than officers, we'll assume AF enlisted grade structure for the sake of discussion.

I get that this is a volunteer org. You should know what you're getting into, then once in it you don't get to do whatever you want. Not getting paid doesn't grant you the authority to determine your own fate, and getting paid doesn't take it away from you. Joining the organization obligates you to service according to a military style system, command structure, and orders. You'll follow that system till you decide to leave the org, and that's it.

In other words, a Maj Sq CC should not be able to resign command & take up an E-3 position just cause want to. Who cares what they want? Their boss decides what position they take, which should be based on their experience, expertise, availability, etc (total package).

That's the way it's written in regs & supposed to work. What tends to happen is we get units so desperate for manpower that they'll sell their soul & hand over command powers to the new member to get them & keep them. Well, maybe that's one of the problems that needs to be addressed. Maybe you shouldn't be calling it a Sq when is'really the 12 cadets & 8 adults that actually show up from your 65 on the books, and maybey you shouldn't be asking that tiny unit to do the same administrative work as an AF Sq. So redesignate everything as flights that just do the most minimal funcitons, sharing staff to form a Sq (like a mini-Gp), etc up the chain.

Plus auto assign field grade out of Sqs to Wg/Gp level, if you don't like it then don't take the promotion. Then on the enlisted side you are primarily an operator with little administrative responsibility. Amn grades have no responsibility but the mission, Jr NCOs help run people as: team leaders, training directors, instructors, etc. mid-grade/SNCOs help manage local operations, can be flight leaders (same as you current Sq CC but with a third of the work/responsibility). Upper level NCOs are advisors... AND I don't know about elections vs appointed necessarily, but a 1Sgt system to represent adults to mgmt the way CAC does for cadets.

I think using it in a manner different than the Real Military leads to confusion without many benefits in return.  Substituting an all ranks "Auxiliarist Badge" or grade insignia outside of current AF usage could eliminate a point of contention with the military and perhaps bring us closer to uniformity.

I think that's absolutely wrong. You want to create your own grade insignia & you think that'd lead to less confusion?

We're a component of the AF. That can be debated in some ways & areas, but that's what we've always been at heart & almost everyone would like to have any necessary changes made so it'd be indisputable letter of the law too. We not only need to use a military grade system, we absolutely must. i'm not sure in fact they'd allow us to drop it.


Purpose of a degree/education level:
Education doesn't make you smart, it teaches you how to learn. Having a certain level is proof to others that you can learn complex stuff fast & then apply it effectively. It's a process you you paying someone else to weed out the people that don't have that capability. It doesn't mean that no one ever slips thru the cracks, or that some people w/o formal education can't deal with complex stuff as well or better than some educated folks. But on the whole it's a good evaluation tool. When you're looking at a total package of a person & deciding if you should invest time/money/resources into training them for something complex & highly challenging, then it's certainly a valid thing to look at & set standards for. We do spend resources on training, we do require people to pick up complex stuff fast, and we do need to be smart about who we bring into mgmt.

[ZigZag911]

.Maybe you shouldn't be calling it a Sq when is'really the 12 cadets & 8 adults that actually show up from your 65 on the books, and maybey you shouldn't be asking that tiny unit to do the same administrative work as an AF Sq. So redesignate everything as flights that just do the most minimal funcitons, sharing staff to form a Sq (like a mini-Gp), etc up the chain. 

I've been saying this for 20 years....maybe someone will start listening!

Under this system, there could be field grade officers at the "squadron" level (above local unit level), in fact probably should be in command and operations roles.

Flights could be commanded by anyone MSgt through Capt.

Education might be used to accelerate progression through grades, but should not disqualify committed members from promoting with sufficient training and experience to do the job ....in other words, with a HS education you could still be a lt col eventually.....but probably not as quickly as someone with bachelors or masters degree.

I'd also really like to see us use flight officer grades as warrant ranks for those who have special skills/qualifications, but choose not to accept command or staff responsibilities (e.g., the folks who want to do one thing to the exclusion of all else CAP).

[lordmonar]

In other words, a Maj Sq CC should not be able to resign command & take up an E-3 position just cause want to. Who cares what they want? Their boss decides what position they take, which should be based on their experience, expertise, availability, etc (total package).

Are you saying we should assign jobs to people and if they don't like it they quit?

If that is not a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.

[ddelaney103]

I am another component of the AF - the Civil Servant.

I can supervise (not command) airmen or officers and be supervised by officers.  They can send me to faraway places, even issue me weapons and armor.  However, though I might be considered a Lt Col for housing purposes, I don't wear oak leaves nor do I have the authority of an officer.  If I put on BDU's and pretended to be an officer based on my GS I'd lose the respect of my co-workers.

We are the auxiliary - trying to dress up like real officers when we're not isn't going to get us respect.  It doesn't make it any better to put stripes on either.  Putting on CAP specific grade or a generic Aux badge would stake out a position like civilians - professionals who are part of the team but not full up Airmen.

The whole "you get one choice in CAP - in or out - after that you're NHQ's for life" is a radical change.  I quess the question is how is the mission advanced by such an inflexible attitude?

[DNall]

In other words, a Maj Sq CC should not be able to resign command & take up an E-3 position just cause want to. Who cares what they want? Their boss decides what position they take, which should be based on their experience, expertise, availability, etc (total package).

Are you saying we should assign jobs to people and if they don't like it they quit?
If that is not a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.

Strictly speaking YES, and the member should NOT be led to believe at any point that they have a choice in the matter. Now, certainly you speak with them & TRY to accomodate their desires if/when you can, but you do not assign a new memebrs as ES officer when you have someone better fo rthe job & a big opening at supply that needs filling. You may tell them you need them at supply, they need to work on that for six months, and learn the job, then they can keep doing it as their primary for another year, but you'll also assign them to assist ES if they still want to so they can learn that job too, and then later you'll try to get them in it. It is needs of the service & tehy should know that. Real officers don't get to choose their specialty in advance, or assigned positions later. They certainly get input & can look for openings to inquire about, but they are never the decision maker, and neither are our members.

We are the auxiliary - trying to dress up like real officers when we're not isn't going to get us respect.  It doesn't make it any better to put stripes on either.  Putting on CAP specific grade or a generic Aux badge would stake out a position like civilians - professionals who are part of the team but not full up Airmen.

The branch tape accomplishes that nicely. If it said "US Air Force" then I'd agree we need to put the cutout back with the grade, or some other designator. HOWEVER, the branch tape makes it clear that we are not claiming to be in the AF. Even if it said "USAF Auxiliary" it would be clearly different & distinguishable.

The other half of that thought process is the faker montra. We need to better legitimize our grade by meeting similiar standards & with real training of better selected individuals to produce similiarly capable personnel (commensurate with grade).

The whole "you get one choice in CAP - in or out - after that you're NHQ's for life" is a radical change.  I quess the question is how is the mission advanced by such an inflexible attitude?

It's not new. After WWII, all thru the cold war, for most of our history people have come to the org thinking of it like the military & not behaving as though they could dictate terms or hold their volunteerism over our head in blackmail to get what they want. It's not inflexible at all. As I said, members get considerable input & mgmt should be MUCH better, but ultimately the org tolerates that you are here to serve CAP not your own desires, and if you can't get in line with that, then good order & discipline are right out the window at teh start & if that's the case then we might as well close up shop cause we can't do any good for anyone.

[ZigZag911]

DNall,

On a few occasions I had to 'persuade' officers to accept command of a squadron.

When you push someone into it who does not want it at all -- or pressure someone who wants out of command to stay on when he/she has had enough -- you may think it's 'for the good of the outfit', but from firsthand experience I can tell you that it is precisely the 'outfit' and its people that suffer.

[lordmonar]

The first time my wing/group/unit commander says to me "You got to take this job" is when he will find that he is talking to the back of the door.

When I volunteered for the USAF it was with a full understanding that until my term of enlistment was up...it was the last thing I had the power to "volunteer" for.  I did this knowing why and knowing that I would be compensated for this level of volunteerism. 

YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT IN A REAL VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION!

You certainly can set standards, and not take volunteers....but you can't treat CAP members like they were in the military.  Sorry....let's not pretend....you just can't and any one in power who thinks they can will find that they are in a squadron with only one person in it.

[RiverAux]

If I had way more pilots than I needed (I wish) and a new pilot showed up at the door, I probably wouldn't tell him that he couldn't be a CAP pilot, but I would be honest with him that he would be very low down on the totem pole in terms of getting a chance to fly and that he might get more "action" in another specialty for the time being. 

[ZigZag911]

If I had way more pilots than I needed (I wish) and a new pilot showed up at the door, I probably wouldn't tell him that he couldn't be a CAP pilot, but I would be honest with him that he would be very low down on the totem pole in terms of getting a chance to fly and that he might get more "action" in another specialty for the time being. 

Or you could suggest to this pilot that undertaking a staff job nobody wants could
move him closer to the head of the line to get in the pilot's seat!