Idea: 2 Years of College for all CAP Officers

[ZigZag911]

I really don't see the need for college degree for CAP leadership, provided the Professional Development program is undertaken in a sensible fashion.

And just in the interests of full disclosure, I have several graduate degrees....so i oughta know!

We've seen a fair amount of "instant brass" promoted to field grade on some lame excuse, then running through SLS/CLC/RSC/NSC in six months or a year.

So now they have paper qualifications -- but virtually none of the accompanying experience.

[RiverAux]

While I certainly understand the principle behind the suggestion to require degrees for CAP officers I don't think that will solve any of the problems discussed on this board.  The primary problem with our officers is their leadership ability and screening for college experience will not help in this area. 

[DNall]

Again, listen closely. A degree is NOT being mentioned as a requirement. Not even an associates degree. 60hrs academic credit beyond HS or the equiv is the standard being discussed. The same thing being required of an MLO to teach character to our cadets.

NOW, look at the context under which it's being mentioned. It is NOT as a pretext to say this person can or cannot be a leader. The officer training being proposed is quite intensive intellectually & psychologically. It also costs money for every candidate that goes thru. We also only need about 6000 graduates of this program for all of CAP at our current size, and really that's 3-4 times what we would need if we could ship people around to units where they're needed. It's tripled to quadrupled for redundancy. Obviously we'll be screening candidates. Ensuring someone can deal with the academic rigors of this program w/o wasting our time & money is completely reasonable & education as a factor in that assessment is more than fair.

Why does this bother anyone anyway? Given the percentage of US citizens with at least this much college & the cost barrier to be in CAP, also given that four years of military service should genreate enough academic credit even if it isn't recored by some junior college, it's a VERY VERY VERY small percentage of CAP members that don't meet this requirement. If you put that group in a room, you'd find a portion you don't want in CAP at all, some of the others would make excellent enlisted troops, and maybe a dozen or so would be deserving officer candidates that you'd like to see apply for a waiver.

[JamesG5223]

e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.

a. The immediate superior of the individual being recommended for promotion will ensure that the member meets the minimum eligibility criteria outlined in 6 above and, in addition, is qualified under the criteria of one of the following promotion methods outlined in section B, C, D, or E:

You don't just get promoted because you do your time and go to class.  You have to be recommended by unit commander or immediate superior.  It is their job to stop the morons and imbeciles.

OK fair enough.  You passed the test.  Now, put that into a practical prospective.  How does the commander know who's a "moron" in every instance?

Remember, every one of us is a moron to somebody.  Somewhere along the line we made a mistake and there's some other member out there who thinks we can't tie our shoes because of it.  My point is that "moron-ness" is pretty subjective.

The bottom line for me is this; these are very subjective and sometimes very difficult decisions for a commander to make.  The decision can have many consequences including; promotion of the wrong person, holding back the right person, lawsuits, and loss of members.

Here's an example for you:  Member with low IQ (but high functioning) joins CAP and passes all the tests and training to become a second lieutenant.  Member serves the unit by showing up at every meeting, in uniform and on-time.  Takes on a fairly simple staff position—say testing officer—and performs the duty well.

However, he's just enough on the low side that the cadets occasionally make fun of him behind his back and certainly the military would never have taken him on.  Yet, we don't discriminate, so his membership application was accepted.  We have told him how to go up in rank in class after class. 

Member works hard to fulfill all the requirements to be promoted to first lieutenant.  Do we really have grounds to deny his promotion?  Sure we have the regulatory authority but do we have the moral authority?  Even though we know he will never rise to command of a unit and in fact, is unlikely to be able to do any other job in CAP besides the one he's doing?  If we deny him and he quits are we hurting the unit?  Did we hurt him by allowing him to join in the first place?

I'm not looking for answers to those questions because the answers are subjective.  I'm asking them to illustrate my point that promotion in CAP and officer appointment in CAP is not as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

No commander is omnipotent.  We do not always know who is a moron or who is not a moron or even who will become the next Machiavellian turkey bent on world domination.  Most CAP commanders do the best they can at the time with what they have.

Just because you think somebody is a moron, does not mean thier commander thinks they are.

Your mileage may vary.

[JamesG5223]

Pretty much because of what you said yourself.  Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it.  Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure.  If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?

Just for focus, the largest and most successful business enterprise in the world does not require academic achievement to become a manager, just a few weeks of training in their own course.  Does not seem to have hurt them much.  (Wal-Mart).

[DNall]

Pretty much because of what you said yourself.  Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it.  Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure.  If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?

Just for focus, the largest and most successful business enterprise in the world does not require academic achievement to become a manager, just a few weeks of training in their own course.  Does not seem to have hurt them much.  (Wal-Mart).

NCO position, and requires a long time to work your way into it. On the other hand they do recruit very hard at colleges & take on new grads as executive trainees. In fact Wal-Mart has spoken at length about their inability to find managment material people among the less educated pool they work with. That's why they have turned to college grads, and have great programs for college students, and several scholarship programs to send their employees to school.

[JamesG5223]

Again, listen closely. A degree is NOT being mentioned as a requirement. Not even an associates degree. 60hrs academic credit beyond HS or the equiv is the standard being discussed. The same thing being required of an MLO to teach character to our cadets.

OK, listening.  Please do the same; "College degree" is being used lightly to mean the same as your "60hrs academic credit beyond HS or the equiv" by most writers.  Also, the average semester hour requirement for a 2-year or Associate degree is about 60 hours.  So, listen closely please; the argument about whether a "degree" is required is semantics and incredibly minor.  You're still talking about a significant amount of post high school education that the vast majority of our members don't have.

Additionally, the point many people are trying to make is that no amount of post high school education will guarantee a good CAP leader.  Neither will increased application of OCS curriculum or adapting the NCO curriculum to CAP use.  Like it or not, at the grass roots, CAP is not designed to be the military and never will be. 

However, here's where we agree; CAP does need to increase the professionalism of the adult corps.  I agree.  However, we need to do that in a manner that is rational for Civil Air Patrol leaders, not just to become imitation military leaders or to appear to be something we're not to other agencies.  Professionalism by our own standards will be respected by others.

Many great people fail in CAP because of their preconceived notions of what a military leader must be.  Very unfortunately, all too often these folks are former military officers who when confronted with the realties of little real accountability, having to bag groceries for cash to run the unit, cadets who are out of control, airplanes that need washed, and adult members who do what they want, when they want, simply get overwhelmed and leave.  Then they speak badly of CAP.  Most of that is our own fault because we don't train them for what to expect in a practical sense.  A revamped OTS or NCO school won't address the gap in training—practical CAP unit management.   

...It also costs money for every candidate that goes thru.

I thought it would cost very little.

We also only need about 6000 graduates of this program for all of CAP at our current size, and really that's 3-4 times what we would need if we could ship people around to units where they're needed.

Again, you propose that we become the military, at least in our officer corps. 

For the record, we have roughly 25,000-30,000 adult members now.  If we demote all those who don't qualify for the grade they are now wearing under your proposal, we'll lose at least half, if not more.  That's unacceptable.  I completely disagree with your assessment that only a "VERY VERY VERY" small number of CAP members won't meet the education requirement you are proposing.

However, for the sake of discussion, let's just say you're right, and "VERY VERY VERY" few members don't meet the requirement.  Then what's the point of your proposal?  You just admitted that most CAP officers already meet your requirement and that "VERY VERY VERY" few don't.  So we'd be back to picking and choosing with the same authority we have now.

As for moving people around...unless they pay a healthy salary, excellent benefits, housing allowance, moving allowance, uniforms, etc., that's not going to happen.  Again, you seem to want to be in the military again.  That's cool, but CAP is not it and CAP cannot afford to pay for that.

Why does it bother people?  Because this supposed grass roots community service organization that many fine folks have devoted their lives to under your proposal will throw a lot of those people out.  That's cruel.

[A.Member]

Like it or not, at the grass roots, CAP is not designed to be the military and never will be. 

How then do you explain the Title 10 status.  Also explain the structure of the organization.  While we are not the military we most certainly take much of structure (read=design) from the military.  You've been around long enough, certainly you should understand this.  Take a look a AFAIDL 13, Volumes 1 and 4 and tell me how they describe the organization and leadership.

Why does it bother people?  Because this supposed grass roots community service organization that many fine folks have devoted their lives to under your proposal will throw a lot of those people out.  That's cruel.

I wouldn't characterize the organization as "grass roots".  We receive funding from Congress and directives are provided from National.  In addition, while I may not agree with everything that DNall is proposing (although I generally agree with much of it), I'd hardly say that it "throws people out".  It is just one part of the equation to help solidify and lend greater crediblity to our requirements for command, something that even you admit needs to be done.   In many ways, these proposals would better position us back with some of the founding ideals of the organization.

Interestingly, you continue to throw out figures without any quantitative support - "we'll lose at least half, if not more.  That's unacceptable."  Sure, if such changes are implemented, some people will choose to leave, I have no real heartburn over that.  How many exactly?  At best, all we can say is that's unknown.  Similarly, many people (BTW, there's your real percentage - half) have obviously chosen to leave for one reason or another under the current direction of the organization.  Of course, there will also be some that will undoubtly chose to join as a result of such increased standards as well.  There are other noble organizations, such as the Scouts or 4-H, for those that are not as interested in such changes.  IMO, a smaller organization with a more capable (better trained, dedicated) group of volunteers is much better than a large disfunctional organization with poor leadership and indifferent members.  I've said it before, if I had to chose one, I'd go for quality over quantity.  Change can be hard but is often needed.  It's just a simple difference of opinion.  I'm sure I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine.

[flyguy06]

James,

While I agree with you that we dont need to make members get college credits, I have to disagree with your statement that CAP is not designed to be the military. Look at our history. We were created to augment the military. Backi n those days members didnt wear a "civilian" blue shirt and grey slacks. Everubody wore the Army Air Corps uniform and met the height and weight standards. No questions asked. Either you met it or you couldnt join.

Some where through the year as we recruited peole that didnt want to be affiliated withthe military and the standards changed. For some reason we relaxd our standards.

[lordmonar]

We also only need about 6000 graduates of this program for all of CAP at our current size, and really that's 3-4 times what we would need if we could ship people around to units where they're needed.

Again, you propose that we become the military, at least in our officer corps. 

For the record, we have roughly 25,000-30,000 adult members now.  If we demote all those who don't qualify for the grade they are now wearing under your proposal, we'll lose at least half, if not more.  That's unacceptable.  I completely disagree with your assessment that only a "VERY VERY VERY" small number of CAP members won't meet the education requirement you are proposing.

Not to mention the number of people who will bolt when you start shipping them around.

So you want to lock out a significant number of our members who are currently very good at being CAP officers from becoming leaders...then you want to tell these volunteers that in order for them to stay in the program...they have to go to meetings 2 hours away....because they 20 year USAF SNCO with out any college is not good enough to run a 20 member cadet squadron.

And you want to do this...because you are hoping that someday...the USAF may think that you are just as good as they are and will try to find a job for you.

Sorry boys...that dog don't hunt.

If/when the USAF decides to stop funding us and asks congress to change the law giving us special status.....they will just stop funding us.  If/when we no longer have a function, that will be it.  Sure...we can maybe find another job to do.  But making us super officers is not going to make us more useful the the USAF.  When the SR-71 got mothballed....the pilots did not go out and try to become better pilots and hope the USAF saw how good they were....maybe they'll make the SR-71 a cargo plane.

Now I do think we need to improve our internal leadership development...but that is simply so we can be the best volunteer ES, CP and AE professionals we can be.  I have no illusions of someday becoming a USAF officer and being asked to fly the big ones in time of crisis...nor do I ever see me being asked in my CAP capacity to be the head of air ops as when California finally bites the big one.

[DNall]

60hr vs Degree:
60hrs is noted specifically rather than Associates to address issues like an EMT-I who earned their qualification in non-credit programs that cannot lead to a degree but can be evaluated for equiv. If you say "degree" over & over, it confuses a lot of people that came in during the middle & leaves the impression that this is some kind of elietest effort to hold people back, it isn't and you know that.

Why educated people?
Every person we train right now requires time & money, then spreads a limited budget over more people when they get done. A program like this has a failure rate. It also involves picking some individuals over others for limited slots. You go to a corporation to apply for a job there's dif requirements for a line job that may one day lead to operational middle managment after years, & the requirements to apply for junior executive training. Why you figure that is? The military requires college as a prereq before they even look at a person. Does college make you a leader? No. Does being an officer make you a better leader than an NCO? No. That's not the point. You know there's a reason education is looked at in the world & you know it's a legitimate factor in evaluating people & if we should take a risk on them or not.

Stats - who's qualified?
The US Census says 44% of US residents meet this standard, draw that back to US citizens & it's 67%. Of that remaining 34% (the majority of whom are naturalized citizens who moved to the US as adults), subtract the 16% who do not have a HS diploma, which is required for promotion to FO/2LT in CAP. That brings you to 18%. From that number subtract anyone with life experience that a JrCol will grant equiv credit for (mil, tech school, EMT/Fire/LE training & experience, etc). The average household income among that group is under 20k/yr, which makes time & money for CAP membership extremely difficult at best. There is no good data on CAP membership so I can't give you hard numbers, but I think if you ran the numbers you'd find the large majority of people meet these standards, while we'd only be taking 20-25% of new adults as officers candidates. Education is a legit thing to look at in picking who we give those shots to.

Transition:
No one gets demoted. This is for new members working toward a future force. Existing members would just have to meet the standards for the grade they hold. Example: LtCol needs ACSC if they don't already have it; has two years, plus can ask for a one year extension, to get it done; if they can't or won't by the end of that time then they get dropped one step to Major & no more; if they wish to get promoted from there then they have to have SOS on record (for Major) & do ACSC; that's it. No one gets demoted to enlisted weather they have a degree or not. They're all grandfathered. I don't love that, but there's not a lot of choice in the matter.

Retention:
As to worrying about retention, what do you think happens when the federal govt requires a PFT for adults to go on any mission, and requires state/local to require the same thing of us if they want to get any federal money for anything at all. What about if ELT missions dry up & our air/radio/vehicle fleet gets cut in half or more? You know what our recruiting to retention rates are now & historically? We replace the majority of our membership every few years anyway. While I don't want lose people & don't want to push anyone out, we have to focus on where we need to be & have faith that we can recruit to replace our losses thru a rough transition.

I did NOT say we need to move poeple around. I said we'd make 3-4 times more officers than we need because we can NOT move people around.

Nature of the beast
This is not a grassroots community service organization. The red cross is not a grass roots community service organization. We do tap resources all over the country, but those resources are centrally controlled & the people spent to accomplish national & regional objectives on behalf of the govt. No one's being pushed along, much less thrown out. However change does require breaking a few eggs & things don't stay the same forever. Is it more important to keep things the way they are so everyone feels comfortable right to the end, or to preserve & protect what's good for CAP & the country in teh long-term even if it may cost a lot? I didn't make the technology change or the national standards that flowed out of 9/11 or the new mission set that needs to be done by something like us but that we're not good enough for right now. I'm just looking at how to react to the world that's already changed & try to be proactive before it's too late. I know change is painful. You have to accept the pain & move beyond it.

To be clear, I'm not trying to turn CAP into the military, not remotely. They get forced to duty for months at a time & go far far away where they get shot at, and get paid in return for that. That's not what we're making CAP into. We're just setting scalable standards for scalable levels of responsibility. Stepping up to be judged by our customer on their standards. The is all about mission. The mission we have is going away very soon. We have to change to something that better serves the AF needs to justify our budget. There's a laundry list of things that need doing critically, that we have the right gear & capability in the right place to do, but we're viewed as idiots off the street. Some of that's PR, but a lot of it's true when you use their standards to make the judgement. We have to fix that to be trusted again with inportant functions of the govt. Otherwise, we're gone. Some people are okay with that just so they're comfortable on the way. I see it as fiddling while the city burns, or reaaranging the deck chairs on the titanic, whichever you like the best.

[A.Member]

And you want to do this...because you are hoping that someday...the USAF may think that you are just as good as they are and will try to find a job for you.

Sorry boys...that dog don't hunt.

If/when the USAF decides to stop funding us and asks congress to change the law giving us special status.....they will just stop funding us.  If/when we no longer have a function, that will be it.  Sure...we can maybe find another job to do.  But making us super officers is not going to make us more useful the the USAF. 

You're missing it.  It's not just about making us "more useful" to just USAF, it's about having greater credibility with any organization we choose to do business with in the future.  It is not merely one item, it is one component of a larger improvement plan.  All of which gives us another selling point - and one that is greatly needed.

[Major_Chuck]

Pretty much because of what you said yourself.  Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it.  Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure.  If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?

I agree, some level of parity but with numerous military NCO schools, CAP Professional Development Courses, and an untold blevy of mindnumbing corporate leadership workshops and training, (plus civilian/military training and experience) -- why would a two year degree not equal workplace experience.

[RiverAux]

We've got to remember that when the military requires degrees it is imposing that requirement on kids in their early 20s who have very little life experience to draw from.  At that stage if you've got 2 23 year-olds one of whom with a college degree and one without, there is a pretty good chance that the one with the degree is probably more mature and more capable of taking on more critical positions -- so, that one is the officer.

Most adults are entering CAP in their 40s or later and we can assume they've already mature individuals who understand the work ethic required for someone in a leadership position.

As someone with a graduate degree this proposal wouldn't affect me one way or the other, but I just don't see any major benefit to CAP here.   

[MajorSER]

60hr vs Degree:
Example: LtCol needs ACSC if they don't already have it; has two years, plus can ask for a one year extension, to get it done; if they can't or won't by the end of that time then they get dropped one step to Major & no more; if they wish to get promoted from there then they have to have SOS on record (for Major) & do ACSC; that's it.

My Question is:
When you say that LtCol needs ACSC, does that mean if he has NSC that is equivalent or does he need it in addition to?

Tags - MIKE

[A.Member]

Why educated people?
... The military requires college as a prereq before they even look at a person. Does college make you a leader? No. Does being an officer make you a better leader than an NCO? No. That's not the point. You know there's a reason education is looked at in the world & you know it's a legitimate factor in evaluating people & if we should take a risk on them or not.

And to add to that it's a requirement for every member of the uniformed services, not just those under the DOD.  Consider the commissioning requirements from a couple of the non-DOD services:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps:

Citizenship Requirements

A United States citizen of good moral character.

Service Requirement

Ability to complete 20 years of active commissioned service by the 62nd birthday.

Educational Requirements

Completion of a baccalaureate degree in a major course of study in engineering, mathematics, or science related to NOAA's mission, conferred by a college, university, or academy listed in the most recent edition of the Directory of Post Secondary Institutions (Volume 1).

Completion of at least 48 semester (72 quarter) hours in fields related to NOAA's scientific or technical activities.

Completion of Calculus I and Calculus II, (integral and differential calculus).

Completion of Physics I and Physics II, calculus based with laboratory credits.

Applicants who have completed Calculus I and Physics I, but have not completed Calculus II and Physics II, may request to substitute other academic science subjects directly related to NOAA's mission. For example, coursework in computer science or geographical information systems may be substituted.

Physical Requirements

Meet the medical standards prescribed by the United States Coast Guard for officer candidates.

Visual acuity of 20/400, correctable to 20/20, (each eye). Laser refractive surgery for vision correction is disqualifying. Waivers for Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) and Laser In-situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) may be considered, if certain criteria are met. Prior RK surgery will not be granted a medical waiver. All refractive surgery is disqualifying for aviation duty and diving duty.

etc, etc...

Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

To be accepted as an applicant for the Commissioned Corps, you must:

• Be a U.S. citizen;
• Be under 44 years of age (age may be offset by prior active-duty Uniformed Service time and/or civil service work experience in a PHS agency at a PHS site at a level commensurate with the duties of a commissioned officer);
• Have served less than 8 years of active duty if you are/were a member of another Uniformed Service (Click here to access the Former/Current Uniformed Service Members section);
  
• Be earning or have earned a qualifying degree from an accredited program per the appointment standards for your professional discipline (general duty officers cannot be called to active duty until they have completed their qualifying degree); and
• Meet medical and licensure/certification/registration requirements. For information on licensure/certification/registration requirements specific to your professional discipline, click the hyperlink for your professional Category listed on the home page.

In addition, commissioned officers are required to:

• Complete a basic suitability clearance. Some officers, such as those hired by the Bureau of Prisons or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, are required to complete a higher level clearance prior to being called to duty. Most officers, however, will actually begin this process after the call to duty.

In many ways, these are even a higher standard than DOD requirements.  Granted, we are not technically part of the uniformed services but we do wear the AF-style uniform and ~95+% of the general public can't/don't/won't make that distinction.  At the same time, the standards being discussed here are not nearly as rigid as those of the uniformed services either.  It's a logical middle ground, especially for an organization that sometimes acts as the official Auxillary of the USAF.

[A.Member]

We've got to remember that when the military requires degrees it is imposing that requirement on kids in their early 20s who have very little life experience to draw from.  At that stage if you've got 2 23 year-olds one of whom with a college degree and one without, there is a pretty good chance that the one with the degree is probably more mature and more capable of taking on more critical positions -- so, that one is the officer.

Commissions can be earned up until a persons 35th birthday.  Not all are 23 year olds.

Most adults are entering CAP in their 40s or later and we can assume they've already mature individuals who understand the work ethic required for someone in a leadership position.

In many cases that may be true.  However, based on my experiences/observations, there are still enough exceptions to make such an assumption dangerous and, thus, warrants changes to address the issue.

[BillB]

ACSC and NSC are nowhere near being equivlant.

[DNall]

When you say that LtCol needs ACSC, does that mean if he has NSC that is equivalent or does he need it in addition to?

No he needs to go back & take ACSC, but has time to do so, plus the extension if needed. That 2-3yr timeframe is a loose number up for debate, but some reasonable cap has to be set. The content at RSC is in the first third of OTS, most of NSC is covered by the end plus OBC. Specs for the officer program are in another thread. They're in line w/ AF: PME, duty-performance, TIG (increased to AF avgs).

We've got to remember that when the military requires degrees it is imposing that requirement on kids in their early 20s who have very little life experience to draw from.  At that stage if you've got 2 23 year-olds one of whom with a college degree and one without, there is a pretty good chance that the one with the degree is probably more mature and more capable of taking on more critical positions -- so, that one is the officer.

Most adults are entering CAP in their 40s or later and we can assume they've already mature individuals who understand the work ethic required for someone in a leadership position.

As someone with a graduate degree this proposal wouldn't affect me one way or the other, but I just don't see any major benefit to CAP here.   

As someone who's already in CAP it wouldn't effect you either.

The kid who just finished serving four years in the military is less mature than teh one who spent that time getting hammered four nights a week on his parent's dime? That's the case you're making? The degree is not required by the military to establish maturity. If that were the quality they were going for then they'd raise the age to get a commission & use some other more effective method as a prereq.

Can you do nuclear physics? Has your life experience prepared you to do nuclear physics? The program described here is roughly the AF OTS program, which is at an upper-division to graduate level & delivered at high speed to an audience that's expected to be extremely capable in an academic environment.

There comes a point in the business ladder where you need a degree no matter how much experience or common sense you might have. Education doesn't hold people back, it makes them capable of things they couldn't do w/o it and not because of a piece of paper.

[TankerT]

While college doesn't equate into leadership skills, it does translate into a basic level of accepted training that is needed/recognized in the business and military world.

I know Lt Cols that can't write in complete sentences, and have handwriting worse than my 5 year old cousin.  They also have no clue as to effectively speak in public.  That lack of basic skills in fundamental areas hurt us.  Some college requiremetns (from an accredited program mind you...) would help eliminate some of this down the road.  (I have no faith in our PD system as it stands, as there seems to be little/no graduation requirement other than breathing and staying awake.)