Specialties Ranked For "Hassle"

[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.