Additional Level V requirement -- research paper

[RiverAux]

In recent years CAP has taken steps to improve its professional development program for senior members.  However, from what I see, the various staff colleges and other courses are still primarily focused on developing individual skills.

While I am in favor of keeping the week-long seminar-style National Staff College, what do you think about requiring students to produce a research paper on some aspect of CAP operations involving any of our programs at any level?  This is a fairly typical requirement of other "graduate level" programs as we advertise the NSC. 

Such papers would need to be brought to the NSC and could form the basis for a lot of the discussion.  After the NSC, the papers would be modified based on those comments and you would not get credit for the NSC until they were finalized.  The papers could then be posted on the national web page. 

I think this has the potential for assisting CAP in a lot of areas by making our most accomplished members seriously examine the program, look for areas of improvement, and figure out how to implement such changes or better yet, bring a great local idea that is working well to the attention of the organization as a whole.  Thus, we would actually get a "product" out of each NSC student that could possibly help all of CAP. 

[DG]

The National Legal Officers College already includes preparing a position paper or a "White Paper" as part of the curriculum.

The topics usually are assigned by the General Counsel, and are legal issues of interest to CAP.

The papers are prepared during the College and then made as a presentation to all those attending the College.

[Ricochet13]

Interesting suggestion.  Wouldn't necessarily mind writing a paper as part of NSC, but not sure of the benefit to the individual member or CAP from such an academic exercise.  I'd need to hear a lot more from Corporate Leadership as to intended uses.   

One thought related to this might be establishment of a CAP Journal, following along the lines of Armor Journal.  www.knox.army.mil/armormag/

To quote from the Armor Journal Mission Statement "ARMOR is the professional journal of the U.S. Army's Armor Branch, published by the Chief of Armor at Fort Knox, Ky., training center for the Army's tank and cavalry forces. It is also one of the oldest publications in the U.S., founded in 1888 by cavalry officers on the American frontier as a forum for discussing doctrine, tactics, and equipment among soldiers geographically separated by the great distances of the American West.

ARMOR continues this mission today, although the horses have yielded to tanks and armored fighting vehicles, and the distances between soldiers and units now span duty stations across the globe.

ARMOR's reason for being is not to reinforce official positions, or to act as a command information conduit, but to surface controversy and debate among professionals in the force. Significantly, the articles in ARMOR are not picked by a publications review board, but by the journal's editor-in-chief and staff. Indeed, ARMOR authors frequently deal with problems they have encountered while attempting to implement official doctrine, concerns about the wisdom of  particular tactics, useful discoveries they have made within their own units, and techniques that need to be shared with others. These articles have, in turn, stirred readers to reply, and the resulting debate has enlivened many of the journal's letters to the editor."

There are any number of advantages and disadvantages to this proposed requirement.  I'm open for further discussion.

[RiverAux]

The benefit to the individual member is that it would make them sit down and analyze some aspect of CAP or its programs and come up with a suggested course of action.  Isn't that the sort of capability that we'd like from these high-level leaders? 

The benefit to CAP as a whole would be the result of such analsis that could potentially be put to use by the organization. It is also a way of making the knowledge and experiences of those who have progressed that far in the organization available to others. 

Just for example, say over the course of the next few years, 5 or 6 NSC attendees decide to write papers on doctine for use of CAP ground teams.  I think that would have a lot of potential to help the organization decide what we want out of that part of our program. 

By the way, I'm thinking of papers in the realm of 20-30 pages rather than a 100 or 200 page dissertation. 

A professional journal to distribute these papers, or condensed versions of them would be perfect.  However, without the incentive of having to do it to complete Level V, I'm not sure you would get enough contributions to sustain one.  At least that seems to have been what happened the last time a CAP professional journal was attempted. 

[Ricochet13]

Still listening.  Let's hear from some others on this subject.  If it's worth doing, I'd support further development of this requirement.  Just don't want busy work and another part of a ticket to have to be punched.

So tell me more!   

[davedove]

I can understand your intent, but my question is why are you making something more difficult for Level V when only about 5% of the members ever reach that level anyway.

It would seem to me that if you want to improve CAP as a whole, it would be better to first direct efforts at the lower levels of the PD program.

[RiverAux]

Why direct it at Level V?  Well, because the folks achieving that level are more or less the elite of the organization and I think we would want to take advantage of the great store of knowledge and experience they have attained while getting to that point.  Also, we advertise it as a "graduate level" program and every one I've heard of requires that some sort of paper be written as part of the requirements. 

There are other threads discussing lower level aspects of the PD program.  I am interested in getting as much bang for the buck as we can out of the people who are taking advantage of the best training we have to offer.   Also, this type of paper fits in with the goals of NSC better than it does with the lower levels. 

By the way, I'm glad to hear that the National Legal College is already doing this. 

I also see these papers as a way to develop a culture within CAP that pays more attention to "lessons learned" and having a written document will help to ensure that we don't have to learn them again the hard way.

[RiverAux]

Actually, this idea could be sort of a modification to an existing Level IV requirement to either give a public presentation to a non-CAP group or prepare an aerospace manuscript for publication. 

[DNall]

In recent years CAP has taken steps to improve its professional development program for senior members.  However, from what I see, the various staff colleges and other courses are still primarily focused on developing individual skills.

While I am in favor of keeping the week-long seminar-style National Staff College, what do you think about requiring students to produce a research paper on some aspect of CAP operations involving any of our programs at any level?  This is a fairly typical requirement of other "graduate level" programs as we advertise the NSC. 

Such papers would need to be brought to the NSC and could form the basis for a lot of the discussion.  After the NSC, the papers would be modified based on those comments and you would not get credit for the NSC until they were finalized.  The papers could then be posted on the national web page. 

I think this has the potential for assisting CAP in a lot of areas by making our most accomplished members seriously examine the program, look for areas of improvement, and figure out how to implement such changes or better yet, bring a great local idea that is working well to the attention of the organization as a whole.  Thus, we would actually get a "product" out of each NSC student that could possibly help all of CAP. 

Actually, I'd put it at the RSC level. Well... Actually I think it'd be a good requirement in addition to RSC. In that way, you'd have to do it regardless if you choose RSC or ACSC. Anyway, I'd do some online module stuff to help them understand the writing, research, standards, etc for the paper. Do the thing & submit. If approved then you are eligible for RSC/ACSC. And yes certainly presentation & discussion at length of that material would be great at the course.

[Cecil DP]

At one point, NSC assigned a project topic to each seminar for presentation at the end of the course. Many of these actually worked themselves into National Policy. It's been over 10 years since I went to my last  NSC so I don't know if it is still done.

[Maj Daniel Sauerwein]

While the idea has some merit, I would urge caution. As a doctoral student in History, I have written several papers and presented a few to conferences. I do these because they are required as part of both my graduate program, but also are important to starting my career.

The comparisons between this idea and similar requirements of professional schools in the military forgets that the people attending the professional programs in the military are doing this for their job. As volunteers, we do not have as much time to devote to the courses beyond the week (or two) that we would attend the program. I can tell you that writing a paper worthy of a journal takes much longer and would deter members from pursuing the highest levels of PD. I do like the idea of a CAP journal, but again urge caution.

If NSC or some other program intends to implement a writing requirement, then the course(s) will need a revision. The curriculum would need to be split between a correspondence aspect, which would include a research paper assignment. This part of the course would need to be structured like AFIADL courses, allowing several months or a year to complete. The other part would be the in-resident portion that would allow for presentations of the papers and a graduation ceremony.

I don't know about most other members, but I would have a hard time trying to fit a quality CAP research paper into my other responsibilities.

One thing that came to mind just now is, instead of having a journal for CAP, why not first try to have members contribute to AF professional journals?

[RiverAux]

Yes, it would require some revision of the NSC to incorporate a research paper requirement. 

I would see the paper being required of all students and then perhaps publishing abstracts of most of them while those who are motivated would condense their paper to an article.  However, I'm also just fine with just doing the papers -- the journal would be a nice extra. 

Except for perhaps an occassional article on ES, most of what CAP does has no direct relevance to the AF and I doubt would be considered for an AF journal.  For example, an article on improving the CAP logistical system is not going to be prime material for an AF journal.  But, if someone thought they had something to say that would be of value for the whole AF, I wouldn't discourage it.   

Keep in mind that we're talking about a requirement that would affect maybe 50 CAP members a year that go to NSC so this would not be a burden to the 95% of CAP seniors who never attend. 

[DNall]

While the idea has some merit, I would urge caution. As a doctoral student in History, I have written several papers and presented a few to conferences. I do these because they are required as part of both my graduate program, but also are important to starting my career.

The comparisons between this idea and similar requirements of professional schools in the military forgets that the people attending the professional programs in the military are doing this for their job. As volunteers, we do not have as much time to devote to the courses beyond the week (or two) that we would attend the program. I can tell you that writing a paper worthy of a journal takes much longer and would deter members from pursuing the highest levels of PD. I do like the idea of a CAP journal, but again urge caution.

There's that volunteer as a crutch thing again. I freakin hate that! AWC requires exactly such a  paper, which is done by correspondence while working full-time, possibly even deployed. For Guard/Reserve, they do that around their full-time civilian jobs, lives, and family concerns. The other services do the same. In fact, the Army does this to a much greater extent. I realize you are a volunteer & they get paid a little bit for their work, but do you realize they have the same or greater demands on their time/lives/jobs/etc as you do, quite a bit more in the reserve components. It's a matter of commitment to the organization & a desire to improve one's self & advance within that organization that make the difference. Never is it a case of pay or time available.

[O-Rex]

I think we need to look at the whole RSC/NSC curriculum as a whole.  I attended neither, opting for SOS and ACSC instead, but I did get feedback from collegues that it was a good networking opp, but as for what they came away from it with, one member put it succinctly "I could've had a V-8."

The idea of a paper has it's merits, but I think there needs to be a move to make the course overall a bit more academically rigorous.

Granted, a week is not a long time, but perhaps a pre-course reading list and workbook may help (we do this for check pilot school, and it allows participants to hit the ground running...)

[Eclipse]

No thank you.

[BillB]

Keep in mind the original requirement for Level V included Air War College, and the associated thesis length paper. Then the National Board lowered the requirements for Level V.

[davedove]

My initial reaction is to question why you would want to add another requirement into the PD program?  We want to encourage everyone in CAP to advance.  Adding another requirement would tend to discourage people from completing the level.

Now, assuming we wanted to do this, I think a question needs to be answered:  How would this further the goals and direction of CAP?  I would think that the Level V people, the senior leaders of CAP, should be focusing on the future of CAP.

Of course, before we can answer that question, we first need to ask the question:  What are the goals and direction of CAP?  It seems to me that the National Leadership has been more concerned with uniform changes and the like.  The top people have to establish where we're going as an organization, then training requirements can be developed to support that vision.  Until then, we're really only reinventing the current system.

[Chappie]

IIRC NSC seminar groups are involved in a project that deals with CAP on a national level.  I was a student in 2001 following 9-11.  Seminar groups were assigned coming up with ways that CAP could be part of a HSL component.  Many of the "suggestions" / "observations" found their way to our current missions.  I was on NSC in 06 and 07.  Can't remember what  the project that was undertaken in 06 but last year the project dealt with Recruiting/Retention.    My understanding is that the work completed by seminar groups is given to NHQ to look at and possibly incorporate into policy.

[RiverAux]

We want to encourage everyone in CAP to advance. Adding another requirement would tend to discourage people from completing the level.

Advancement is not a goal in and of itself.  Advancement in the best program we can put together is what we should be shooting for.  We could guarantee that 95% of people make Level V rather than 5% by dropping all sorts of requirements, but it wouldn't help us. 

I would think that the Level V people, the senior leaders of CAP, should be focusing on the future of CAP.

Exactly what this would do, but do it in a more formalized way than has been done in the past and in such a way as to produce a "product" that could be distributed to the entire organization rather than disappear into the ether once the flip charts from NSC are thrown away.

What are the goals and direction of CAP? .....The top people have to establish where we're going as an organization, then training requirements can be developed to support that vision. 

Exactly the sort of question that could be addressed in these papers. 

[Trung Si Ma]

The idea of requiring something of use to the whole organization does have merit at that level.

Maybe an assigned topic with a pre-attendence required paper.  That topic could serve as focus during the NSC, followed by a rewrite of the initial paper based on the knowledge gained at NSC (the seminars, dialog, focused readings, etc).

[RiverAux]

Theres several ways it could be done from allowing each student to write about whatever strikes their fancy, to picking a small number of general topics from which the members would need to choose (and with each writing about their own take on that subject), to providing a suggested topic list but still allowing the students to write about something else if they'd like. 

However, to be really useful, I would think the papers would need to be relatively specific.  For example, asking participants to write a paper on something as broad as "the future of CAP" wouldn't be very good.  However getting it down to something like "the future of CAP's ground team program" or "Aerospace Education in the Cadet Program" as either an assigned or suggested topic would probably produce something fairly detailed. 

[Ricochet13]

There's that volunteer as a crutch thing again. I freakin hate that! AWC requires exactly such a  paper, which is done by correspondence while working full-time, possibly even deployed. For Guard/Reserve, they do that around their full-time civilian jobs, lives, and family concerns. The other services do the same. In fact, the Army does this to a much greater extent. I realize you are a volunteer & they get paid a little bit for their work, but do you realize they have the same or greater demands on their time/lives/jobs/etc as you do, quite a bit more in the reserve components. It's a matter of commitment to the organization & a desire to improve one's self & advance within that organization that make the difference. Never is it a case of pay or time available.

Been there, done that, will continue to be committed, but I "freakin' hate"    the idea of performing busy work because someone simply thinks there ought to be another requirement or hoop to jump through. 

The point of caution here is that time taken to prepare a paper as a requirement for NSC will take time away from other things, including time spent on CAP projects and activities.  If it were to be added — make it something worthwhile to do.

Now, getting past that issue, several posts have suggested positive and negative outcomes of such a requirement.  Are there others?   Let's hear from some more people and see if there is support for a "meaningful" requirements and the administrative structure which would have to be put in place to support this.

RiverAux has suggested somethings which could, and I emphasize "could" have a positive impact on the organization for which we spend much time , effort, and money.  Worth more discussion I think.   

[RiverAux]

I don't see the need for any additional "infrastructure" beyond designating an "editor" and some reviewers among the NSC staff and perhaps elsewhere in CAP who would be responsibile for working on the documents after submission and getting them in shape for distribution. 

[Al Sayre]

Remember,  many of our senior CAP folks haven't been in college for years, and some not at all.  If you are going to expect them to write a college level thesis paper, you are going to need to issue a pamphlet or writers guide with format instructions, how to do footnotes, bibliography, suggested length etc.  I can tell you that the writing standards changed between my 1st time at college in 1978 and when I went back in 1997, and again since my wife went back in 2005.  The other problem I forsee is that many people will see this as an insurmountable barrier and just not bother to progress (like a lot of folks do with ECI-13 unfortunately).

[jimmydeanno]

COS students get a copy of The Toungue and Quill, which coincidentally is also available on cap.gov.  Writer's guide, check.

[Al Sayre]

Handing someone who hasn't written a technical paper in 20 or 30 years a 383 page book on writing isn't going to do a lot for their self confidence.  I like the Tongue and Quill, but you also need the AU Style guide to go with it.
 
I'm thinking of a more concise "Here's what you need to know to write the paper". 
Things like:
How long should the paper be?
Minimum number of references?
Is this an opinion paper or a formal thesis?
Here are a few examples of well written papers.

As an Engineer, I write reports and position papers all the time.  Banging out 20 pages is no big deal to me.  Others I know would freak if they had to write a simple two or three page thesis.  Throw in a requirement for footnotes and a bibliography and they will just say "screw it".  I'm simply afraid that this would not serve any good purpose other than to place a fairly high hurdle at the end of the professional development program that would discourage a lot of people from participating.  Are we interested in getting a useful product or testing peoples writing ability?  Anyone with a two-year-college degree should have already passed the writing test. 

If you want something useful to CAP, then I think a collaborative project is the way to go.  Rather than fifty individuals attempting to display their writing prowess, have ten groups work on five different problems and see what they can come up with.   
     
YMMV

[jeders]

Having just finished writting defending and rewriting a 240 page thesis (most of which was appendices) I hate the idea of writting more research papers. That being said, I think that this is a good idea. The purpose of it shouldn't be to showcase your writting ability, but rather your research and analytical thinking abilities. There should be editors to handle the grammar. Personally, I'd be a lot more willing to put a little blind faith in higher ups if I new that they had to pass something that really tested their ability to do research and to reason something out and then come out with a good position on it based on that research. Hopefully it would lead to fewer changes in regs that come about "just because."

However, I wouldn't make it a part of NSC or RSC. I would make it a separate requirement, and here's my reasoning. First, we make cadets write an essay and present it in order to get two of their achievements. This isn't because we're testing how much they learn in English class, but rather we're testing their ability to do research, think through an issue, and come out with a position. This same line of thinking should be able to carry over to the senior side.

Second, with all of the time constraints that the average CAP SM has going for Level 5, it would be much easier to spread the work out over the course of 6 months to a year, especially when you factor in that they must first do research. Having a set timeframe, lets say 1 year, in which to do research and write the paper with periodic submittals to check your work and make sure you're on track would be best, in my opinion.

So making it be a part of NSC/RSC wouldn't work so well. As far as writting guides and style guides, those are easy to produce. Under my plan, however, there would be some new infrastructure requirements. You would likely have to hire one or two new people at NHQ whose sole job it was to edit and review these papers. Also, you would need a new server to upload the papers to so that national can review them and then send you feedback. But still, these are minor things.

It can work, and I think maybe we should try to do something like this. If NSC is supposed to be for the top leadership of CAP, let's make sure that we have very well qualified leaders.

[RiverAux]

I'm ok with it being a separate requirement from NSC.  The only reason I was linking them was because one of the main things they're supposed to be doing there is discussing high-level issues and I thought the papers would be a good catalyst for these discussions.  But, I'm not married to the idea.  You've explained my reasons for suggesting this better than I did. 

[DNall]

There's that volunteer as a crutch thing again. I freakin hate that! AWC requires exactly such a  paper, which is done by correspondence while working full-time, possibly even deployed. For Guard/Reserve, they do that around their full-time civilian jobs, lives, and family concerns. The other services do the same. In fact, the Army does this to a much greater extent. I realize you are a volunteer & they get paid a little bit for their work, but do you realize they have the same or greater demands on their time/lives/jobs/etc as you do, quite a bit more in the reserve components. It's a matter of commitment to the organization & a desire to improve one's self & advance within that organization that make the difference. Never is it a case of pay or time available.

Been there, done that, will continue to be committed, but I "freakin' hate"    the idea of performing busy work because someone simply thinks there ought to be another requirement or hoop to jump through. 

The point of caution here is that time taken to prepare a paper as a requirement for NSC will take time away from other things, including time spent on CAP projects and activities.  If it were to be added — make it something worthwhile to do.

Now, getting past that issue, several posts have suggested positive and negative outcomes of such a requirement.  Are there others?   Let's hear from some more people and see if there is support for a "meaningful" requirements and the administrative structure which would have to be put in place to support this.

RiverAux has suggested somethings which could, and I emphasize "could" have a positive impact on the organization for which we spend much time , effort, and money.  Worth more discussion I think.   

I don't believe it was suggested as an additional arbitrary hoop, and certainly is in no way busy work.

The point of requirements is two fold. It's a gatekeeper to keep less than capable people from being able to advance, and it's a developmental tool to ensure those that do advance are capable at the next level. NSC is supposed to prepare officers for national staff assignments. Can you really say that every graduate is fully-qualified to serve in that role? Same for RSC at the region level? If not, then they need to be changed, and if that means the courses below need to be changed to develop people adequately, then that sounds pretty good too.

As far as application, I thought that was fairly implied. The point is to develop policy positions & ideas in an academic setting & have those professionally discussed with visibility of good ideas moving on to policy makers. Members don't have input in the organization. Less input that a junior enlisted airman is capable of having in fact. And the decision making levels are more encapsulated with less training or competence than would be standard in a military structure. That's all a bad thing.

Giving members a way to put idea in front of serious discussion with serious people, with decision makers looking at the cream of the crop (both ideas and people) is a great thing. Preparing members for staff roles at Wg/Reg/nat by having them create & pitch ideas or work thru serious issues or future plans of the organization, even in a theoretical sense, is highly appropriate - that's exactly their job as a staff officer. Compounding the best of those ideas into an annual professional journal in magazine format sent out to our adult members is an excellent idea. Fostering discussion of those articles in forums like this or a national professional development site would also be a good way to extend those concepts to the general membership.

I don't think we're talking about a masters thesis level paper here, but certainly a couple three pages of a professional journal kind of thing. I don't think that's an overwhelming requirement.

[Ricochet13]

Now you're talking DNall!   :clap:

Can see many great benefits to this.  But 2-3 pages?  Not sure that's the standard, but I'm sure willing to be convinced.

Seems we have some general consensus about the value such a requirement could have for CAP. 

Still want to hear more, although I can already think of two topics that I would pursue.

[RiverAux]

2-3 pages would be totally inadequate.  Heck, the post that started this thread would be almost a page in length by itself and I certainly wouldn't say it would be worthy of such consideration (as it is now).  I'm looking for serious discussion and analysis, preferably involving gathering some data on at at least a wing or maybe even regional level.  Earlier I had suggested 20-30 pages and I still think that is about right, but could perhaps be talked down to 15, which is about what you would expect out of a lot of college-level papers. 

[DNall]

20 pages is far overboard. Maybe with lots of charts/graphs & including the bibliography. They need to write a professional paper. They need to create and develop an idea, analyze a problem & propose solution(s), etc. They don't need to cure cancer or anything. We had a thread here recently that I think is a good example of the kind of things I'd expect for this.

It was discussion on the make up of our future air fleet, given need for increased sensor payloads over the next 20 years. You could equally talk about sensor packages. You could write a pitch for a funding proposal, develop a concept for a NCSA, reform of our professional development pgm, fix the system by which uniform changes are considered & adopted, etc. There's dozens of threads we've had here on this site that would make great papers.

[DogCollar]

I am going to add my $.02.  The reason I would be resistent to submitting a research paper to Civil Air Patrol has nothing to do with wanting to or not, but has everything to do with what happens to the paper after submission and acceptance.  Does it become the "property' of Civil Air Patrol?  If a paper I submitted contained the outline for a new program or service, or a new methodology of accomplishing an existing purpose, would CAP have to come and request my permission to inact, as the author of the idea?  Intellectual property rights is a tricky cuss to navigate around.  It would need to be spelled out

[DNall]

Are you serious? If you come up with an idea right now why would anyone need your permission to enact it? You'll get cited as the author of the paper & the credit you're due since the citation is linked to the idea, both of which are vastly better that what you get right now. The whole point, other than professional development, is the chance to influence policy and improve the organization on the national scale. Making those contributions where you have the ability to do so is your duty as an officer.

[jeders]

When you right a thesis or dissertation, you are generally given a choice on releasing your work. When I wrote my thesis the choices were, and I'm paraphrasing here;

1. Release to the public completely

2. Release for ressearch purposes only and then release to the public after 1 year

3. Hold for one year while copyrights are secured and then contact after 1 year for further release

The same sort of thing could be done here.

[Ricochet13]

Copyright occurs when a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.  Any paper becomes the author's work as 1)  It is not a "work for hire" nor, 2)  part of the expectations of a job description.  If the author wants to further register the copyright, it a very simple process.

Writing a paper for NSC would not involve the document ending up as "corporate property".

[Cecil DP]

There have been several attempts at starting a "Professional" Journal in recent years. Curt LeFond who is now at National Headquarters attempted one about 5 years ago. It went well for a short period and it died for lack of input. How is this one going to be different? 

[DNall]

Because it's driven by a promotion requirement. And because it's a tangible route for common members to put well developed & tested ideas before decision makers to influence policy - mostly the promotion req.

[arajca]

No promotion requires Level V. It's purely an extra step that some members take.

IMHO, it should be a requirement for Lt Col (or a duty perf. promo to Col)

2d Lt -> Level I
1st Lt -> Level II
Capt -> Level III
Maj -> Level IV
Lt Col -> Level V

[RiverAux]

I don't think we would really have the need to have every potential Lt. Col. do one of these sorts of things.  I'm looking more for quality rather than quantity. 

However, I wouldn't have a problem with some other sort of writing assignment for those going for that rank.  Maybe in the 5 page range examining some issue specific to the wing. 

[DNall]

We mentioned earlier in the thread making it a requirement & discussion item for RSC/Lvl IV. And 5-10 pages is what I had in mind.

I don't think everyone needs to be a LtCol. If they can't at least do a serious paper with deep examination of an issue that thru presentation and discussion makes CAP better, I don't see the need for them to be LtCols.

As far as Lvl V, I think it ought to be a requirement to retain Col after holding a position that requires it, and a prereq to at least CAP/CC & CCV, maybe Reg/CC as well, I don't know.

[BillB]

The 1970's original Level V, required Air War College which included a research paper of twenty pages.  It also included completing Industrial College of the Armed Forces by corrospondance or weekend seminar (held for reservists at various locations)  So todays Level V is watered down

[Al Sayre]

Wow, almost a 2 yr bump here.  After re-reading everything, I had a new thought on this idea:  Ok, so I write a paper, who is going to grade it and by what criteria? 

Example 1:  If I can write about anything I want, I can play "stump the chump"and write about arcane methods of nuclear instrumentation or something else that maybe 500 people in the country have enough knowledge of the subject to grade the content.  So now once again we have have a writing exercise.

Example 2:  I write about a CAP topic or issue that is passionate to me, but the grader either doesn't care about it or is completely on the other side of the fence on the issue, do I fail?  Again we are left with a writing exercise.

I see no way to have any objective criteria for grading the content of the paper, so what we are left with is a writing exercise, which IMHO is a waste of time.

[ascorbate]

Interestingly, the Carl A. Spaatz exam requires cadets to write a paper as a requirement.

Next, the suggestion of seniors officers having to write a research oriented paper (6-10 pages) for completion of Level V sits well with this aspiring Level V candidate. I also heavily favor the publication of a CAP peer-reviewed journal dedicated to disseminating these written works... sign me up as a peer reviewer!

I also have to say this (while hoping that I am not the first one to think it)... we have senior officers who have progressed far in this organization who don't read, write or express themselves very well. A research paper is not going to fix this but it might foster an environment of further self-improvment for those looking to progress thru Level IV or V in the CAP PD program.

IMO, the requirement of a research paper will not dissuade senior officers from aspiring to progress to Level V in the CAP PD program. Most who have already achieved Level IV were determined and persistent in addition to being goal-oriented. Adding this requirement would deter few from going forward to Level V!

[Майор Хаткевич]

Interestingly, the Carl A. Spaatz exam requires cadets to write a paper as a requirement.

Next, the suggestion of seniors officers having to write a research oriented paper (6-10 pages) for completion of Level V sits well with this aspiring Level V candidate. I also heavily favor the publication of a CAP peer-reviewed journal dedicated to disseminating these written works... sign me up as a peer reviewer!

I also have to say this (while hoping that I am not the first one to think it)... we have senior officers who have progressed far in this organization who don't read, write or express themselves very well. A research paper is not going to fix this but it might foster an environment of further self-improvment for those looking to progress thru Level IV or V in the CAP PD program.

IMO, the requirement of a research paper will not dissuade senior officers from aspiring to progress to Level V in the CAP PD program. Most who have already achieved Level IV were determined and persistent in addition to being goal-oriented. Adding this requirement would deter few from going forward to Level V!

Those who would say "forget about it" because of a paper stopped at/before level 2.

[Short Field]

The 1970's original Level V, required Air War College which included a research paper of twenty pages.  It also included completing Industrial College of the Armed Forces by corrospondance or weekend seminar (held for reservists at various locations)

So just start requiring AWC for Level V and ACSC for Level IV.  I am sure the bump in professional development would become very noticeable in a few years.

[Al Sayre]

Or completion would drop to almost nil, since it isn't required for promotion to Lt Col or anything else... 

I still don't understand the problem you are trying to solve.  If someone cannot write effectively, then it's fairly unlikely that they would make it to/through the current NSC curriculum, and even less likely that struggling to produce a single white paper will significantly increase their skill level.  So why do we need to add another obstacle? 

[SarDragon]

This is perhaps an unfair assessment, but the writing skills showing up in many of the posts on here, by Level III members, do not reflect what y'all seem to be expecting from Level IV and V members.

[Майор Хаткевич]

This is perhaps an unfair assessment, but the writing skills showing up in many of the posts on here, by Level III members, do not reflect what y'all seem to be expecting from Level IV and V members.

Ah, but the topic is two years old, so they were but Level II members at that point!  :angel:

[SarDragon]

Not funny.

[arajca]

Not funny.

Yes it is.

[flyboy53]

Unless I'm missing something here, there are a bunch of you who haven't gone to NSC lately.

Students are already required to do a research paper, as such, as a group project and presentation. The difference, though, is that it is done as a team effort, which promotes mentoring, sharing knowledge, and teamwork.

If you take NSC seriously, the eight days you're there are pretty intensive enough, between the presentations, required reading, exercises and the group project. I'm sure that most of the 09 grads are taking great satisfaction in the fact that the group projects on social media are now taking the form of national level guidance and policy.

Requiring another term paper may defeat the purpose of the school, which would also mean that things like the required readings and some of the other exercises, would surely suffer. It would require the use of individual computers and the related task time. It would also be an added expense if NSC is not to supply them,

[ProdigalJim]

I know this is an old thread, but I saw a few folks who came in to jump-start it again, and I, as a new guy, found the whole thread fascinating.

So...

On the "it's too hard for volunteers" notion: in my "other" volunteer life, I'm a firefighter/medic in a large suburban combined career/volunteer dept. (1,200+ members, 40+ firehouses, over a million residents protected). I couldn't so much as pick up a hose line on a fireground until I had completed a seven-month Fire Academy and another month of driving school (so you don't crunch apparatus!), which involved both weekend days (Sat and Sun) for about 10 hours each, plus, typically, a five-hour Tuesday and Thursday evening, plus other days as needed. In other words, 30+ hours a week of training just for the basic qualification, on top of my day job, for months on end. Not bragging in any way, shape, or form, honest, just saying that there are places where volunteers still have to devote lots and lots of time. Paramedic school was more than a year.

I happen to think the idea of a professional journal is terrific, and would promote knowledge-sharing among the entire membership and a higher level of debate across the board.

Recognizing the sentiment that folks don't want to see another hurdle added to the Level V path, maybe the thing to do is not to tie the creation/existence of a journal to an NSC requirement; just set up an Editorial Board, find and screen some peer reviewers with solid CAP credentials, and have at it. Let those with good ideas, at any PD level, do their research, report their findings, and submit. If the peer reviewers think it passes muster, then we accept it for publication.

Maybe I'll even volunteer to do this my very own self...