Idea: 2 Years of College for all CAP Officers

[Guardrail]

I have an idea.  There has been talk of whether or not a college degree should be required for CAP officers.  How about 2 years instead?  I was looking on the New Mexico State Defense Force website (www.nmsg-mil.us), and their educational requirement for a commission is at least 2 years of college.  Why not require the same for CAP officers?

The 2 years of college requirement may better-guarantee officers who are capable of thinking critically, since that is the object of college.  I can see this as a cost-effective alternative to forming an Officer Training School for CAP, or something along those lines. 

Community College fees are significantly lower than 4-year college/university fees and AA/AS degrees (or just 2 years of college) can usually be obtained easily through financial aid programs if sufficient funds are unavailable.  Therefore, this would lessen the economic burden of having to pursue a bachelor's degree.

I can think of a lot of benefits in requiring all CAP officers to have at least 2 years of college before becoming eligible for a commission.  This would include former cadets with Mitchell or higher.  For former cadets in this category, I would propose the following:

Mitchell = FO
Earhart = TFO
Eaker/Spaatz = SFO   

The New Mexico State Defense force also requires that officers grade 0-5 and above possess a bachelor's degree or higher, but I won't propose that for CAP (at least not now).  However, I believe that requiring all CAP officers to have at least 2 years of college would be very advantageous.

In summary, requiring all CAP officers to have 2 years of college attained would produce officers who are better trained in critical thinking/more receptive to the CAP Level I training, reduce the financial burden of officer training programs other than Level I, and encourage all CAP officers to further their education.                     

[JamesG5223]

A few random comments:

Under your proposal, would all non-college educated adults be NCO's?

If a 2-year degree is the primary requirement to become a CAP officer, what do you do with somebody who has a Ph.D.?  Or several degrees?  Make them a general? 

How do you address the pilot problem?  It is hard enough to get and keep pilots in CAP as it is.  Not all CAP pilots have degrees.  Do we make the job of recruiting and keeping pilots harder?

How do you address the "educated idiot" issue?  There are many folks out there who have college degrees and are frankly unfit for command or to be a CAP officer.  There are just as many folks out there who have little formal education who have made outstanding contributions to CAP and are fine leaders and officers.

What do you do with the CAP unit who finds itself in the difficult position of having no officers because nobody in the local unit has a degree?

I understand the sentiment behind your proposal, but it needs more development.  Remember, in the military the requirement for a commission is not simply a degree, it is also successful completion of an officer training course of some kind.  CAP should be no different.

[lordmonar]

I have an idea.  There has been talk of whether or not a college degree should be required for CAP officers.  How about 2 years instead?  I was looking on the New Mexico State Defense Force website (www.nmsg-mil.us), and their educational requirement for a commission is at least 2 years of college.  Why not require the same for CAP officers?

Simple answer is that we are not the NM SDF.

Long answer is that the officer requirments for SDF units usually (but not always) mirror the NG requirments.

The 2 years of college requirement may better-guarantee officers who are capable of thinking critically, since that is the object of college.  I can see this as a cost-effective alternative to forming an Officer Training School for CAP, or something along those lines.

Not necessarrily true....both in theory and in practice.  I know people with masters and Phd's that are not capable of critical thinking.  Secondly...while in a target age group...having a degree or not may have a bearing on your ability to lead and absorbt the required training.  It does not apply to 40 and over crowd that is our usual recruits.

Community College fees are significantly lower than 4-year college/university fees and AA/AS degrees (or just 2 years of college) can usually be obtained easily through financial aid programs if sufficient funds are unavailable.  Therefore, this would lessen the economic burden of having to pursue a bachelor's degree.

As if someone would go out to get a degree so they can join CAP.

I can think of a lot of benefits in requiring all CAP officers to have at least 2 years of college before becoming eligible for a commission.

Except as a excusioniar gatekeeper....it is simply an arbitrary standard.  Having an AA degree in no way shape or form makes you a better officer.  It is not an indicator of your abilities and is simply exclusionary.

Let's take for example my father.  22 year veterain of the USAF, retired as a Lt Col.  Thousands of flying hours as a Navigator.  Ran a state park in Western Arkansas with 60-100 employees, managed milions of dollars in assets and sales.  Managed a 60 room hotel on the park grounds and was a certified state law enforment officer.  He was an officer of the volunteer fire department.

Pretty cool!  Yes.  No degree.  Not even an AA in basket weaving.  Dropped out of college in 59.  Got drafted in 60...but was able to go into the USAF as an aviation cadet.

A college degree has nothing to do with your ability to lead.  I myself did not get my AA degree until 2000 and finished by BA in '05.  By your reasoning I was unfit to be an officer.

Yes....in certain situations (like deciding if it is worth spending money on a new recruit) using a college degree is a useful gate keeper.  In a CAP application it will only mean about 80% of your SM will not be able to join.

So weigh that in your matrix.  Is having a "more professional" officer core worth loosing 80% of your personnel?

And also chew on this....no matter how closely we model our officer selction and training programs after the USAF.....we will still not earn their respect.  We will still always be a second class citezen to them.  Yes they may let us join the O-Club and maybe they may not begrudge the salute....but we are still only part time civilians playing at military to them.

In summary, requiring all CAP officers to have 2 years of college attained would produce officers who are better trained in critical thinking/more receptive to the CAP Level I training, reduce the financial burden of officer training programs other than Level I, and encourage all CAP officers to further their education.

Well listen....level I training does not require any sort of degree to be receptive...in fact, level I training was so mind numbingly boring back when I took it 1985, I would have said it was a complete waste of time.  

Secondly...what fincanical burden of the officer training programs?  Printing up a bunch of manuals for your old style level I maybe cost a whopping $2 per student!  Come one.  That one is a real stretch.

And finaly....if I wanted to be an officer so bad that I went to college just to join CAP....instead of a the real military....I thing I got more serious problems than lack of education and I don't think I would be the type of person I want in CAP.        


YMMV....but any gate keeper that requres and aribitrary degree is just a waste of time.  It will force away a lot of good people...not make the already good people we have better.

Creating good officers is a function of mentoring and training....not selection and gatekeeping.

[DNall]

well, I been taking a break from this line of thought, but I'll try to get back in the mix...

What I recommended was the requirement be a BA, BUT that waivers be readily available for 60hrs/associates AND EITHER prior-service/EMT/Pilot/FCC ham/ A&P/accounting/etc/2-years supervisory work experience applicable to a staff role.

I think that's reasonable. It's basically the standard to enter NG OCS (not to graduate). It gives creedance to our current special skills appointment system while reeling it back into practical reality. Yeah I think that's a pretty good standard. A degree doesn't certify you as smart, but it certifies you as not retarded. You think I'm kidding around when I say that, but I LITERALLY have a senior member came w/ a package deal on two cadets before I got there that I swear fell off the short bus head first, and I don't mean in the figurative or just a little sense. I mean the "have you seen my basebal?" sense of the phrase, but what can I do other than refuse to promote him to 2Lt, and open up to complaints over why? Especially since we decided the ADA is a good thing.

[Guardrail]

Before I go on, there’s a few things I think I should point out.

1. I don’t propose anything beyond 2 years of college for all CAP officers.  Not sure where the degree issue came from.

2. I don’t believe a degree is required to be a good officer.  Capt Harris’ example of his father is an excellent one, and he makes a good point. 

3. This is just an idea.  No advocacy involved, no forcing my opinion on anyone else.  No need for anyone to get wound up over this. 

[DNall]

It comes from my much previous proposal that's in the works. With no offense to anyone's fatehr, you do understand the professional standards have continually & exponentially raised over the years in the AF, especially in the last 20 years, yes? Older officers, like the one referred to, were grandfatehred in. Does that mean it requires a degree to be a good officer, certainly not, BUT it stops the litterally stupid from putting together a good resume & making the cut. College is a good gatekeeper. The military has thought so for a long time, and there's a reason for that, several actually.

Please look at what I said though. I'm not saying a degree wither. I said meet one of these two requirements, degree OR 2 years w/ extra qual or experience that applies to CAP (meaning other than bagging goceries). Once the educational standard is met (degree or almost automatic waiver on defined rules), no advantage is given one way or the other. It's still competitive from there based on an interview, written statement, and letters of recommendation. Obviously the goal being to weed out REAL officer material from not so much, on a competitive basis for alimited number of slots.

I understand you're starting from an outside basis & working your way in on a single factor, but we've been here already & reached concensus on a set of standards. I respect your opinions & appreciate anything you can do to help us justify these standards, but we're there already on what's going up.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Guardrail:

You might want to check out "Clarification of Officer Qualifications in the New CAP," since this has been beat around more than a soccer ball at an Irish-English match.

Looking at other officer accession programs is a valid method of comparison, and a starting point to consider and discuss modifying our program.

I would add this, however.  College cannot replace the idea of an OTS.  College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another.  Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.

Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.

[Dragoon]

What you are going to see in this thread (and others like it) are everyone voting for the option that gives them what they want and excludes everyone else.

People with college degrees want that to be the standard.  People without them don't.

People whose jobs let them take two weeks off at the drop of the hat will favor mandatory attendance at a two week OTS.  People who work retail will fight it.

People who are pilots will want aviators to get command preference for units with airplanes.  Ground pounders will claim that being a pilot doesn't matter for commanding aviation units.

Thin guys want to everyone to meet weight standards.  Overweight folks claim it doesn't matter.

The list goes on and on.

What it really comes down to is that everyone wants the standards set low enough so that they can jump all the bars, but no lower.  After all, how can anyone be special if everyone is special?  And we all want to be special.

I have no idea how to fix this.  I can't wait for someone to say "even though I'll never make the grade, I think the standards should be set here."

[mikeylikey]

How about no!  Why is college necessary?  I spent the majority of my college days playing cadet in ROTC and partying.  It was only something I HAD to do to get a  commission.  I would have skipped college if I could have still been an officer.  I have yet to use my degree for anything.  Good thing Uncle Sam payed for my time there or I would never have.  I can say confidently that there are many people who are smarter, brighter, and function better in society than I do, but yet did not go to college. 

The whole college/ university thing is over rated and designed to keep the underprivileged down and make it harder for them to find better paying jobs!

I will say that college was fun but shouldn't go any further than that or you may think poorly of me.

[Hawk200]

I would add this, however.  College cannot replace the idea of an OTS.  College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another.  Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.

I'm glad someone mentioned this. I think the same thing applies to the military, but that's my opinion. I worked in comm in the AF and I had one commander that had a degree in chemistry. Another had an engineering degree, with no real experience in communications. The military doesn't seem to use peoples' educational backgrounds, we don't need a similar program for a volunteer organization.

I think an OTS course is what CAP requires. The miltary may accede officers because they have degrees, but they still require an in-residence attendance. There are things that must be learned that college won't teach you.

Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.

I would modify this to say "You shouldn't have cadets knowing more about D&C....". In many cases, this is already an established fact. It is in my unit.

What you are going to see in this thread (and others like it) are everyone voting for the option that gives them what they want and excludes everyone else.
...........
I have no idea how to fix this.  I can't wait for someone to say "even though I'll never make the grade, I think the standards should be set here."

I won't say that I would never make the grade, but I would probably consider attending an OTS course. I would make an effort to attend, or at least "audit" any new officer training courses, so I'm familiar with it's contents. Even if those requirements didn't apply to me. It would put me on the same page as the newer officers.

And honestly, there are things that some of us may strive for, that we know we probably won't make. Not everyone will be a wing commander, but it may still be a goal.

[A.Member]

College cannot replace the idea of an OTS.  College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another.  Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the process of networking.

Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.

Agreed.  An OTS type of solution is needed as well. 

In order to improve the officer corps and the organization as a whole, the bar needs to be raised.  It's as simple as that.   

The proposed addition of both a degree requirement (4 years or 2 year with a waiver) along with an OTS solution to be eligible for CAP officer appointments is a very welcome one, and much needed (long overdue). 

This would require the reinstatement of enlisted ranks and that is very welcome as well. 

Such changes will help to better define the organization and adds legitimacy to what we're doing.  Keep in mind, the Air Force (along with all the other services, so far as I'm aware) requires a 4-year degree as part of the basic eligibility requirement for officers.  There are many more reasons for us to do so than there are for us not to do so. 

If this means some members leave, then so be it (quality over quantity).  However, if we were more professional as a whole, I strongly suspect that we'd attract higher quality members and the membership situation would actually improve some.  I think there are a sizable number of potential members that are put off by the amatuer-hour nature of some squadrons.  As a whole the organization will benefit dramatically.

[davedove]

I'm all for people getting a higher education, but I'm not sure it should be a CAP requirement.  After all, many of our members are well into their 40's and beyond.  I don't think it would be fair to require them to have some college.  (I have a degree, so it doesn't concern me.)

The military requires degree (bachelor degree to get beyond Captain I think).  But, one benefit for a degree is that it requires four years of the person's life, giving him four more years of experience and maturity.  And I can see that.  For the most part, I wouldn't want some 18 year old fresh out of high school leading me into combat.

Most of CAP's members have a lot of years under their belt.

[A.Member]

I'm all for people getting a higher education, but I'm not sure it should be a CAP requirement.  

Not a CAP requirement - an officer requirement.

[davedove]

I'm all for people getting a higher education, but I'm not sure it should be a CAP requirement.  

Not a CAP requirement - an officer requirement.

Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.

[Guardrail]

Guardrail:

You might want to check out "Clarification of Officer Qualifications in the New CAP," since this has been beat around more than a soccer ball at an Irish-English match.

Looking at other officer accession programs is a valid method of comparison, and a starting point to consider and discuss modifying our program.

Agreed, sir.  Question: are you in favor of both 2 yrs. college and OTS for new CAP officers, or just OTS?

I would add this, however.  College cannot replace the idea of an OTS.  College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another.  Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.

Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.

This is true.  I think a great starting point is to look at how Iowa Wing created their OTS, and see how it could be replicated nation-wide. 

[Guardrail]

Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.

No, there are also senior member NCO's.

[lordmonar]

Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.

No, there are also senior member NCO's.

Yes but that option is only open to those CAP members who were real life NCOs in the past.  You joe off the street MUST become an officer (for the purposes of this rant SMWOG is an officer).

[A.Member]

Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.

Thus, the reinstatement of enlisted ranks for adult members.  It solves the issue quite nicely.

[Hawk200]

Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.

Thus, the reinstatement of enlisted ranks for adult members.  It solves the issue quite nicely.

Sorry, to be blunt, but you gonna pony up the funding to do that? It would take money that we don't have. So it doesn't get solved "quite nicely".

It's easy enough to accomodate prior service NCOs. They are already trained as NCOs. Bringing in a new enlisted progression program will cost us in many ways. Ways that we don't have the resources to support.

[Guardrail]

In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially?  I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.