Specialties Ranked For "Hassle"

[ProdigalJim]

I've been asked during the past few months by a handful of new members for my opinion on which specialty tracks were "easiest" and which were "hardest." I usually talk about a combination of your own interest/inclination and the needs of the unit, etc., etc. But then I get pressed, "yeah, but what's the 'easiest,' and which is 'hardest.'"

My advice is that one member may find a given track easy while another finds it just about impossible, due to temperament, life experience, background, and any other factors. So there's no such thing as easier or harder, just different. On the other hand, I believe it IS possible to examine the requirements for each track to decide which tracks have fewer hoops to jump through and which have more hoops, and maybe even a fence to hop along the way.

I've put here just one man's thinking -- mine -- and reasonable folks may differ. But I'd love to get your thoughts. I tried to apply some very rudimentary analysis to account for the time required to reach Technician, whether there are requirements for formal training in addition to OJT, whether there's a written exam or not, the need for any additional hoops or sign-offs, plus the total time required to reach a Master rating. I then scored each track against those criteria, and sorted the scores from lowest to highest.

[SarDragon]

I would definitely not rank Personnel as easiest. Based on the importance of the job, and the attention to detail involved, I'd score it as a 4 or 5. Admin is easier by a long shot, in terms of successful performance.

There is a test for the senior rating, in the back of CAPP 200. It's terribly out of date, but looking up the new answers is still very productive. For the most part, this is still info you need to know. There are 100 Qs, and about 85-90 of them are still valid. The rest cover stuff that's been totally deleted, or the procedure is completely different.

Speaking of scores, what were your criteria for numerical assignments?

[Eclipse]

It's interesting to see this laid out like this, it certainly spells out the effort involved, though I think its dangerous in general to characterize things this way.

My experience has been that a member fully involved and invested in the program will accomplish the things necessary for
their respective specialty as a matter of course.

Probably the biggest challenge on some of those is that you can't accomplish them without participating in activities and staff work
outside the Unit (both CP & ES, for example).

I've always viewed financial management as the "easiest", assuming you're the units FM - doing the required reports and other functions
is all you need to do to accomplish the FM specialty.

[jimmydeanno]

I think it's odd to see CP in the middle of the pack.  I note that you list it as having no formal instruction.  It's the only specialty track I can think of that requires someone to go to a full weekend training course, multiple times, to get to the Master Rating (TLC).  TLC, I would consider to be formal instruction, and its required for the Senior Rating to attend, and to teach at it for your Master.

In terms of time commitment, I would probably rank CP as one of the highest as the job doesn't end at the end of the meeting like most of the tracks do.

[MisterCD]

No historian.  Ahh, too onerous even to make the list.

[Eclipse]

I think it's odd to see CP in the middle of the pack.  I note that you list it as having no formal instruction.  It's the only specialty track I can think of that requires someone to go to a full weekend training course, multiple times, to get to the Master Rating (TLC).  TLC, I would consider to be formal instruction, and its required for the Senior Rating to attend, and to teach at it for your Master.

In terms of time commitment, I would probably rank CP as one of the highest as the job doesn't end at the end of the meeting like most of the tracks do.

You also have to serve on an encampment staff, which in most cases is going to be a minimum week-long commitment, assuming you're "just"
in a role with no planning involvement.  Much more if you're key staff.   The RST requirement has also been somewhat of an impediment,
since most wings hold only 1-2 sessions a year, some less. 

[lordmonar]

On the subject of RST......why is Wing holding it at all except at the begining of the encampment or Training weekend (assuming you do an NCOLS or something like that)?

Also.....AFAIK anyone can teach RST.

And according to the current CAPP it only takes about 2 hours to complete.

[wuzafuzz]

I would add some factors for hassle of performing the job.  For example tracks that require asset management may look simple from an advancement perspective, but the ordeal of accounting for equipment can be daunting. 

Convincing members to participate in an eyes-on inspection by a certain deadline can be quite a stinker.  Dealing with former members who don't return assets can be a major undertaking.  Logistics and Communications come to mind, there may be others.

There are probably other tracks that are tougher than their track pamphlets suggest.

[Eclipse]

On the subject of RST......why is Wing holding it at all except at the begining of the encampment or Training weekend (assuming you do an NCOLS or something like that)?

Any activity of 4 nights or more requires it.

[lordmonar]

On the subject of RST......why is Wing holding it at all except at the begining of the encampment or Training weekend (assuming you do an NCOLS or something like that)?

Any activity of 4 nights or more requires it.

And?   If you are doing a long activity....do the training before it....anyone can teach RST AFAIK.

[Eclipse]

On the subject of RST......why is Wing holding it at all except at the begining of the encampment or Training weekend (assuming you do an NCOLS or something like that)?

Any activity of 4 nights or more requires it.

And?   If you are doing a long activity....do the training before it....anyone can teach RST AFAIK.

OK - I see.  I meant that most wings have few activities of the duration required (4 nights).  But yes,
anyone could teach it, and any activity could use an RST, regardless of the duration, though I think you're
going to be hard-pressed to find many weekend or 1-day activities where people will be willing to give up 2 precious
hours for something that isn't required.

[Private Investigator]

Aptitude is a big deal assigning people to staff jobs. Usually I can guess who is being set up for an "epic fail".

Being an IG I knew who got stuck in the less glamorous jobs. Usually a SMWOG or a 2Lt in jobs like PAO, Safety, Logistics is a sure sign of the Unit's weakness. In Units with an aircraft, the Aircraft Manager is always the sharpest indiviual and their overall Logistics Program will be passable.

Last time I was on Wing Staff and I could run Wing wide reports. We had twice as many Master rated Admin Officers as compared to Master rated Personnel Officers, Wing wide. 

[Woodsy]

I have found that by "easiest" many new members really mean what takes the least amount of time-to-completion.  For example, some specialty tracks require a 6 month internship, some a 12 month, and I believe there may be some that don't have a stated time period at all. 

[UWONGO2]

On the subject of RST......why is Wing holding it at all except at the begining of the encampment or Training weekend (assuming you do an NCOLS or something like that)?

Any activity of 4 nights or more requires it.

What if the participant is staying less than 4 nights?

[Eclipse]

On the subject of RST......why is Wing holding it at all except at the begining of the encampment or Training weekend (assuming you do an NCOLS or something like that)?

Any activity of 4 nights or more requires it.

What if the participant is staying less than 4 nights?

It doesn't matter - it's based on the activity's duration, not the specific participation of any individuals.

[4fhoward]

I would add an additional requirement to the IG program.  To obtain the Master rating the IG has to conduct an actual investigation.  These can get nasty and drawn out.  The stress and planning is enough to make someone go grey.
At each level there is a separate course that has to be completed.  The final, IG college can be substituted for Region Staff College (RSC).  What other specialty track other the Legal can sub for RSC.

Also the IG has to be evaluated by the National IG to obtain the Master Rating.

The Legal, Health, Flight Operations, Standardization-Evaluation and Organizational Excellence specialty tracks has been left out.

Organizational Excellence requires master in Aerospace, Cadet and ES.

[SARDOC]

The final, IG college can be substituted for Region Staff College (RSC).  What other specialty track other the Legal can sub for RSC.

Chaplains and Safety

[ßτε]

The Legal, Health, Flight Operations, Standardization-Evaluation and Organizational Excellence specialty tracks has been left out.
Organizational Excellence requires master in Aerospace, Cadet and ES.

There are no real requirements for Legal and Health Services.

Flight Operations has been rolled into Operations.

Standardization-Evaluation is on the list.

Organizational Excellence is no longer a specialty track.

[Private Investigator]

I would add an additional requirement to the IG program.  To obtain the Master rating the IG has to conduct an actual investigation.  These can get nasty and drawn out.  The stress and planning is enough to make someone go grey.
At each level there is a separate course that has to be completed.  The final, IG college can be substituted for Region Staff College (RSC).  What other specialty track other the Legal can sub for RSC.

Also the IG has to be evaluated by the National IG to obtain the Master Rating.

IG has to be the hardest to get Master rated in.

[VNY]

I've sorted the scores from lowest to highest.

You left off "Organizational Excellence"  which on your scale would rate about a 30-40.  It rates at least a 10 just to get into it, as its the only one you have to apply for, and can easily be rejected.

[RogueLeader]

I've sorted the scores from lowest to highest.

You left off "Organizational Excellence"  which on your scale would rate about a 30-40.  It rates at least a 10 just to get into it, as its the only one you have to apply for, and can easily be rejected.

Organizational Excellence is no longer a specialty track.

[JeffDG]

I've sorted the scores from lowest to highest.

You left off "Organizational Excellence"  which on your scale would rate about a 30-40.  It rates at least a 10 just to get into it, as its the only one you have to apply for, and can easily be rejected.

Again, OE is not a specialty track.

[RiverAux]

It does point out some crazy inequities in terms of how the system has been set up.  Just looking at the time qualifications to obtain a masters points this out.  4 years for a recruiting and retention master but only 3 years for cadet programs (one of our top programs)? 
Now, I would argue that some of those with the longest times are probably justified, but having the rest range from 24-48 months doesn't make much sense. 

[JeffDG]

It does point out some crazy inequities in terms of how the system has been set up.  Just looking at the time qualifications to obtain a masters points this out.  4 years for a recruiting and retention master but only 3 years for cadet programs (one of our top programs)? 
Now, I would argue that some of those with the longest times are probably justified, but having the rest range from 24-48 months doesn't make much sense.

ES takes a minimum of 5 years to get a "Master" in.

It also, IIRC, takes the longest amount of time to get a Technician in (1 year)

[Майор Хаткевич]

In CP you can literally produce a Spaatz cadet in 3 years, and have opportunities to participate in all types of cadet activities. I think that's probably spot on, while others maybe a bit too long.

[Eclipse]

You also have to complete Level III before CP master, and while it's not unheard of to do LIII in three years,
it's also not very common.

In that 3 years you'd have to do SLS, CLC, TLC, OBC, two conferences, at least one encampment as staff, and that's
on top of the staff activities required by the suggested jobs (which you'd need to do many of the other service requirements).
If you're in a wing offering these classes regularly, it won't be too big a deal, but others offer them using a Mayan calendar,
and "...if you miss this year's chance, we'll see you after the apocalypse...)

I'd say 4-5 years is a more likely common completion, which looks about right to me.  Anyone doing it in that amount of
time would have to be pretty engaged, and thus fairly knowledgeable, especially with the more recent, higher requirements.

[SamFranklin]

Weighing the specialities for hassle is all wrong. I know this thread is mostly just chit-chat, so it's a harmless exercise, but we have senior award programs not to be ends in themselves but as small tokens of appreciation to those who voluntarily participate in a lot of training. By talking of the "hassle" weight, we're implying that the aim of our service is to earn awards. Just attend what training you can so that you can be of more service to our customers and know that you'll receive some recognition after the fact.

[RiverAux]

I don't think I would characterize the senior member specialty tracks as some sort of "award" program.  We want people to participate in the programs so that they know how to conduct specific type of work that CAP needs done.  I don't think its out of line to tell people which ones might be harder or take longer to complete than others.  After all, participation is entirely voluntary. 

Now, if you're a commander and you're worried that this might drive people to choose the easiest ones, you've got a simple way to prevent that.  You just say, "Well, the administrative track is pretty easy but those duties are being filled right now and it might be a while before a position is open that you can use as your internship." 

Just because someone chooses a specialty track doesn't mean that they're entitled to getting an staff appointment. 

In fact, I really don't like those situations where a squadron has an Admin Officer (for example) with 5 assistants when you know that most of those assistants are not really doing anything to help.  There are a few squadron staff jobs where an assistant would be really helpful, but not many. 

[SARDOC]

I actually ask people to work in at least two specialty tracks.  One that interests them and then I give them a choice between a couple that are needed to support the squadron.  If the one they select one that is already one of my essential operation choices then I encourage another one that is either Aerospace Education, Emergency Services or Cadet Programs.  These jobs are our mission so I try to encourage them. 

Yes, some are easier than others, however some that may be easy require a a good amount of daily detailed work that may be underestimated.

[Eclipse]

Having more than one track, as well as more than one area of interest in CAP is crucial, IMO to healthy members.  CAP is very cyclical, ES will be
busy some parts of the year, CP others, if you're involved with both, you're always busy, if not, yo risk the members getting disconnected and
board.

[VNY]

Organizational Excellence is no longer a specialty track.

Thanks for the correction, and good riddance to it.

[JeffDG]

Organizational Excellence is no longer a specialty track.

Thanks for the correction, and good riddance to it.

Still exists and is active, but it's not a specialty track.

[RogueLeader]

yo risk the members getting disconnected and
board.

Do we allow transfiguration now?  Is it a new specialty track?  If so, I want in.

[Майор Хаткевич]

yo risk the members getting disconnected and
board.

Do we allow transfiguration now?  Is it a new specialty track?  If so, I want in.

'

Har Har Har.


Lame.

[Eclipse]

yo risk the members getting disconnected and
board.

Do we allow transfiguration now?  Is it a new specialty track?  If so, I want in.

Wow, that's a pretty tore' up sentence...can't fix it now.

[ProdigalJim]

I would definitely not rank Personnel as easiest. Based on the importance of the job, and the attention to detail involved, I'd score it as a 4 or 5. Admin is easier by a long shot, in terms of successful performance.

There is a test for the senior rating, in the back of CAPP 200. It's terribly out of date, but looking up the new answers is still very productive. For the most part, this is still info you need to know. There are 100 Qs, and about 85-90 of them are still valid. The rest cover stuff that's been totally deleted, or the procedure is completely different.

Speaking of scores, what were your criteria for numerical assignments?

I don't think I would disagree with you, on a subjective basis. This was strictly an attempt to look at objective criteria, after which a person can layer their own subjectivity on to it. I would find Personnel challenging enough to quite likely never get past Technician, but some people really dig that sort of thing and can do well with it.

The objective here really was to answer the specific question that *some* new members pose, and have certainly posed to me: "Which specialty tracks are easiest/hardest to progress through?" And as I said earlier, I really try to discourage the Easy vs. Hard discussion, because one man's "easy" is another's "please shoot me now and get it over with."

As for the scoring, I looked at five characteristics and assigned extremely simple weights based on objective qualities:

1) Duty Time to Tech Rating -- pretty self-explanatory. Six months is the baseline, but it can be 12 months or, in the case of Plans & Programs, it can be an unknown, but large, number because you need *another* Tech rating first. The baseline case (six months) is assigned a zero; 12 months gets a 1. Plans & Programs gets a 2, because it's some level, undefined, beyond a 1.

2) Requirement for Formal Instruction -- if there's an actual class or course required, that's an extra hurdle, so it gets a 2. If it's strictly OJT, it gets a 1.

3) Is There An Exam To Pass? -- Yes gets a 2; No gets a 1. The reason No isn't a zero is because all the specialties require some assessment, somehow, of your proficiency (some units are more rudimentary in this regard than others, but I was going by the regs rather than experience with individual units).

4) Are There Additional Requirements? -- This covers the gamut, but things like attendance at a conference, etc., all get caught under this heading. 2 for Yes and 1 for No

5) Total Minimum Service Time To Master Rating -- Again, this isn't how "hard" it is, but how long a road you're on. For some members, this is a meaningful question. Depending on the specialty, a Master rating could come in as little as two years or as long as five (or more, depending on life, missions, schools, etc.). This wide range necessitated a wider scoring range: 24 months got a zero, 30 months to three years got a 1, 42 months got a 2, while anything four years and beyond got a 3.

Just a way of thinking through my answer for whenever I'm asked by new members. Others might choose to weight the factors differently, and that's perfectly OK by me.

Again I want to stress, though, that the objective look is hardly the be-all and end-all on the question. Personally, I've found Emergency Services to be easier than some of the other specialties, but I think that's partly because I did GT and Comms when I was a cadet in the late 70s and early 80s, and because I spent 13 years in the Fire Service. Some of the other "easier" specialties I think I'd find baffling.

[ProdigalJim]

I would add some factors for hassle of performing the job.  For example tracks that require asset management may look simple from an advancement perspective, but the ordeal of accounting for equipment can be daunting. 

Convincing members to participate in an eyes-on inspection by a certain deadline can be quite a stinker.  Dealing with former members who don't return assets can be a major undertaking.  Logistics and Communications come to mind, there may be others.

There are probably other tracks that are tougher than their track pamphlets suggest.

I think that's a good idea. I wonder how I would score it?

[umpirecali]

Where a list like this comes in handy to a new member is in a scenario like this:

SM 1 and SM 2 join a squadron about the same time. Their squadron commander or PDO asks what they are interested in. person 1 is interested in A, B, and C and person 2 is interested in B, C, and D. A and D are known to be cumbersome time hogs, whereas B and C are lighter responsibilities. Person 1 has a family, a career, and multiple responsibilities outside of CAP and can participate a bit but has gaps of time where they have other things they need to attend to.  Person 2 is retired, and has a lot of time to devote to CAP.

Based on this scenario, I might advice person 2 to start with D and work in C as they get more comfortable, whereas person 1 I might advice to start with B due to their time commitment levels.