Idea: 2 Years of College for all CAP Officers

[lordmonar]

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.

I know USAF Lt Cols just like that too!  I know USAFA graduates that get phisically ill before breifings.  I had command who could not write his way out of a wet paper bag and his speaking skills were simply attrocious.

Again...the problme is not the quality of the raw material....but the training they get in the mean time.

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.)

You just said it!  You could require Phd's as a gate keeper to entry....if you don't improve the PDY systems it will not make a bit of difference.

[Hawk200]

(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.)

Do you advocate just letting that program rot? That's a program that needs work and upgrading, not abandonment. And we will never get people remotely qualified to meet our needs if we just accept someone elses training, try to make it fit into something of ours and don't provide any of our own.

Let me ask the forum at large this: What is so frightening about improving our initial training? Does the work to set up scare you? Or is it just the general fear of change? I'm betting a lot of the protests to the contrary are going to be for that reason.

People are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.

[TankerT]

Do you advocate just letting that program rot? That's a program that needs work and upgrading, not abandonment. And we will never get people remotely qualified to meet our needs if we just accept someone elses training, try to make it fit into something of ours and don't provide any of our own.

Let me ask the forum at large this: What is so frightening about improving our initial training? Does the work to set up scare you? Or is it just the general fear of change? I'm betting a lot of the protests to the contrary are going to be for that reason.

People are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.

HUH?  Where did I state that I advocate just letting the program rot?  Never said that.  Didn't imply that.  I just stated that the current program has no quality control as for who gets credit and who does not.  Sitting and breathing isn't training.

I attended a Senior IG course a while back.  It was a well run course.  AND, there was a nice exam at the end.  Not too terrible mind you. But, you really had to be paying attention, and have been participating in the exercises to pass it.  (No bump on the log credit there...)

If you didn't notice, NHQ has started to improve our initial training... (it's a step forward...) the new Level I course...

And, they are working on others to my knowledge..

SLS/CLC are in vast need of improvement... mainly from a quality control standpoint.  Region Staff College especially.  (I would expect that we should have some type of completion/graduation evaluation for someone looking to become a Lt. Col.)

I think this change is good.  Change for the sake of change isn't good.  Change to meet a need is.  I think we have a standards issue when it comes to some of our PD training.  (The standard being... you really don't have to learn... you just have to be there....)

[Guardrail]

Let me ask the forum at large this: What is so frightening about improving our initial training? Does the work to set up scare you? Or is it just the general fear of change? I'm betting a lot of the protests to the contrary are going to be for that reason.

I think it's a matter of both the daunting task of setting up improved initial training, and the fear of change.

People are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxdm824YYUS%2526i%253D4%252F4%255F1%255F218%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">

[RiverAux]

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?

I was comparing 2 23 year-old side by side with no military experience.  If I was comparing a person who had completed a 4-year hitch to someone just out of college with no ROTC or other military experience that would be a different story. 

My point is that the requirements the military has instilled are based on their general needs and the general composition of their force.  CAP's composition is so much skewed towards older, more experienced folks that I don't see college as a being all that relevant. 

Say we get two new CAP members, both aged 55.  One got a 4-year degree and then went on to a career shuffling papers in the Social Secuirty Dept.  The other never went to college, but started their own business and successfully ran it for 30 years before retiring early.  Based on that information alone, I would probably say the businessman would probably have more potential to be a good CAP leader. 

[DNall]

Then that person should apply for waivers & best of luck to them. The standard in the military has nothing to do with maturity.

I'd also dispute that it's invalid due to age of our recruits. SDFs recruit people in the same age range as us, and they require an associates at company grade, BA/BS at field grade - that's from California, but pretty standard from best I can tell. Now why do you think they make a 50 you Lt have an associates? (they alos had a interesting rule for max ages at each grade level).

Again, education is a necessary requirement in entering a management training program, & it doesn't matter how much experience you have. It is not the only factor, it's not even the most important factor. It's just one thing that's looked at to evaluate your ability to do the training, and your suitability to rise over a career in the leadership pool from which all command slots are picked. You want to stcik in a Sq & focus on the job, that's the enlisted side. You want to be pulled from the field to manage logistics, & work your way thru levels above reality, that's officer work.

People are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.

2nd

[RiverAux]

Well, actually SDFs are a little bit different than us in that they have maximum enlistment ages and mandatory retirement ages.  The details will vary depending on the state but you're not going to see many SDF members over 70 which is common in CAP. 

[Hawk200]

HUH?  Where did I state that I advocate just letting the program rot?  Never said that.  Didn't imply that.  I just stated that the current program has no quality control as for who gets credit and who does not.  Sitting and breathing isn't training.

OK, good. I asked because there are people that think we shouldn't work on it at all. I was trying to figure out which camp you were in.

I attended a Senior IG course a while back.  It was a well run course.  AND, there was a nice exam at the end.  Not too terrible mind you. But, you really had to be paying attention, and have been participating in the exercises to pass it.  (No bump on the log credit there...)

That's good to hear. We need to enact that across the board. Not just credit, but meeting standard.

If you didn't notice, NHQ has started to improve our initial training... (it's a step forward...) the new Level I course...

I still think that's not enough. Got a friend in the Air Force who has done training for thirteen years. Maybe he's rubbing off on me, but I think training should be organized, well presented, and accounted for. Testing is one of the ways that shows the effectiveness of true training, not just presentations.

And they are working on others to my knowledge..

SLS/CLC are in vast need of improvement... mainly from a quality control standpoint.  Region Staff College especially.  (I would expect that we should have some type of completion/graduation evaluation for someone looking to become a Lt. Col.)

I will certainly agree there. As I said above there are far too many presentations instead of taught material. If you don't test, it's not being taught, it's being presented.

I think this change is good.  Change for the sake of change isn't good.  Change to meet a need is.  I think we have a standards issue when it comes to some of our PD training.  (The standard being... you really don't have to learn... you just have to be there....)

Agreed. We need people that are more qualified before we throw them into a specialty track. And the standard that you mention is for more reality than anything else.

To the forum at large, one thing I've seen numerous times is that we need the enlisted side because not everyone would qualify for officer. To be fair, if someone can't pass an officer course, what kind of enlisted person would they make? Most military enlisted would pass the officer courses that are out there anyway. Do we try "to make it work" for someone who can't? About the only thing that says about us is that respiration and pulse are our only standards.

[DNall]

Well, actually SDFs are a little bit different than us in that they have maximum enlistment ages and mandatory retirement ages.  The details will vary depending on the state but you're not going to see many SDF members over 70 which is common in CAP. 

Yes they do (64-70), as do commercial/airline pilots, & most other professions in which life/property depends on your health, mental accuity, etc. Having flown w/ a couple 70+ command pilots, I think it's a worthy thing to consider. Ca does somethng interesting in transfering them to a state historical society.

That doesn't bear on education though. They're still requiring an associates at company grade & BA at field grade. They are unpaid, military uniformed, in a non-military but para-military org based on their parent service, & they have a very simliar funtion to CAP in supporting their govt & parent service as professionals.

[aveighter]

This entire discussion is nothing new.  Every group or organization that has gone through a period of growth, development and increasing sophistication  has experienced the same pains.  The examples are legion.  A look back at many of the professions of today reveals a similar pattern.

Look at it from the perspective of the current crop of practitioners.  They see a job they have always done (and in their own opinion done marvelously) being redefined at an entry level different from theirs, and oftentimes with an academic component they had never considered much less achieved.  They are usually unable to recognize the changing nature of the task and the environment in which it is performed.

The thing is, they are partially right.  A great example is the movie "The Right Stuff".  The great test pilots of the post WWII era, among them one of my personal heroes General Yeager, were passed over for a bunch of snot-nosed college boy pilots who increasingly had in addition to their flying ability engineering and advanced technical skills and education.  Now, any one of those greats could have flown the hell out of the early Mercury missions.  But, by the time the space program had evolved into the Apollo missions it was becoming a very different ball game.  Those fellows on Apollo 13 made it back on a measure of luck and a huge dose of pure brain power.  It had become a different world.

You want wailing and gnashing of teeth?  The elder son, young Marine Sergeant aveighter, Iraq combat vet and private pilot returning home and to AFROTC forced into playing "toy soldier" (his words cleaned up for a general audience) and learning that there are tools other than the bayonet for leading men and accomplishing a mission the AF way.  He has learned that there is, indeed, a reason for the educational requirements, that it does in the lager scheme of things make a difference.

If CAP is to survive it must evolve.  The days of a couple old farts in a rattle trap airplane tooling along looking out the window are gone.  Now it's glass cockpits, satellite systems, complex airspace and interfacing with personnel from a growing array of agencies that are themselves increasingly sophisticated, both military and civilian.  Looking out the window is still indicated, but so is a whole lot more.  We need to talk that talk, walk that walk and look that look.  Places like Iowa Wing recognize this and have adapted.  Posters that rail against these changes do not, will not and will be left behind if they do not succeed in destroying the organization first.

Most of the proposals here seem to include a period of change and grand fathering which doesn't run anyone out the door but allows for change over a period of time.  Quite reasonable I think.

[JamesG5223]

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.

As I recall, height and weight standards were introduced into CAP in the late 1980's.  I don't recall seeing any CAP regulations that required any height and weight standards before that for CAP members, and in fact, I believe the military didn't use height and weight standards during World War II.  If a doctor passed you, they took you.

My point is that although CAP has a military like structure, we are civilians.  And therein likes the heart of this discussion and the basic personality split of CAP; are we civilians or are we military?  Right now, we are legally civilians, period.

Our challenge is to reconcile to John or Jane Member (and to outside observers) the issues that this personality split presents.

[DNall]

The ht/wt standards were introduced in a relaxed version in CAP at the same time as they became necessary in the military. If I'm not mistaken that was right aftrer Korea. I was most certainly long before the 80s. It occured prior to CAP dumping the adult enlisted corps.

Of course we're legally civilians, which is all about not getting paid. If they could figure out how to obligate us to service & bind us to UCMJ w/o paying salary or benifits you can bet your butt they would.

Is it possible though for there to be a legal technicality that makes us civilians & a corporation, but in practice & personality we choose as an organization & culture to behave as though we were in the military? That's the circumstances under which CAP has operated most of its life, & the degredation of those circumstances is a primary wedge factor with the AF.

This stuff is going to happen in one form or another. Outside factors force that case upon us. You're better off at least accepting that as a hypothetical & looking at how we can make it work.

[ZigZag911]

The ht/wt standards were introduced in a relaxed version in CAP at the same time as they became necessary in the military. If I'm not mistaken that was right aftrer Korea. I was most certainly long before the 80s. It occured prior to CAP dumping the adult enlisted corps.

Perhaps the rules existed on paper earlier (though I don't recall seeing them), but it did not start getting pushed hard in CAP till mid 80s.

[DNall]

That may be. You can line up corporate style-uniforms with these marker points. Side issue though. We were founded as a militatry organization doing military missions, have ALWAYS been a para-military org in mil uniform considered combatants by international law (including today) & functioning on funding from & orders of the military in service of military objectives. It really is a technicality that makes us civilians, and that certainly doesn't mean we need to act like it.

[lordmonar]

Say we get two new CAP members, both aged 55.  One got a 4-year degree and then went on to a career shuffling papers in the Social Security Dept.  The other never went to college, but started their own business and successfully ran it for 30 years before retiring early.  Based on that information alone, I would probably say the businessman would probably have more potential to be a good CAP leader. 

And yet...you want to implement rules that would allow the non leader college graduate to become a CAP leader...but the guy with a lot of leader potential with no degree, must always take a secondary role.

When you guys can come up with a fix to this sort of problem...then I will begin to listen to you and your degree requirement schemes.  Don't tell me about gate keeping to reduce costs, or to due to limited availabilty...because right now there is no training and you still have to prove that a degree gatekeeper vs 20 years work experience is valuable.

[DNall]

Easy enough... Education is one small factor among a big written package that has to EARN you an interview, that interview EARNS your way in front of a selection board, where you COMPETE for a limited number of slots. Say one in four gets slected, hopefully we can keep it under 15% failure rate, but it may be high depending on the strength of our selection process.

A PhD in non-profit mgmt, MBA, & BS in SaR mgmt, being a retired PJ, 40 years of corporate experience including being CEO of a fortune 500 company, NONE of this will get you a seat in officer training. These are merely a few of MANY objective & subjective factors wieghed in measuring the whole person to determine if they are a good candidate. IF they are selected & stick it out through the difficult training, then they will be an entry level officer being molded by mentors & good NCOs as they move from menial staff kinds of jobs in support of local units & developed from there to national commander. NCOs run local units & are career field operators. Officers are at base on staff. Does this make sense?

[CAP428]

Pardon me for not taking the time to sift through the previous 6 pages to see if this has already been addressed, but...

...remember that CAP Officers can join at 18 years of age.  18 years old (usually) = senior in high school or freshman in college.

Are you going to make all of those people wait two years until they're about 20 and probably then have 2 years of college?

What about those who go from high school into the military, without going to college first?  They could not be CAP officers??

[RiverAux]

Of course we're legally civilians, which is all about not getting paid. If they could figure out how to obligate us to service & bind us to UCMJ w/o paying salary or benifits you can bet your butt they would.

I doubt that would be their preference though if it was it wouldn't be that big a deal to do since that is the sort of relationship SDFs have in their states -- unpaid, but bound by state military code (yes, some get paid on SAD, but that isn't always the case and is a matter of state choice). 

As I pointed out in the Temporary Reserve thread having unpaid volunteers obligated to meet military standards and obligations is nothing new.  Heck, for most of our history unpaid militia duty was the norm in the US. 

[DNall]

Pardon me for not taking the time to sift through the previous 6 pages to see if this has already been addressed, but...

...remember that CAP Officers can join at 18 years of age.  18 years old (usually) = senior in high school or freshman in college.

Are you going to make all of those people wait two years until they're about 20 and probably then have 2 years of college?

What about those who go from high school into the military, without going to college first?  They could not be CAP officers??

Well there's consideration of training & experience for the guy in the military that may be equiv depending on what his job was. That determination is made by outside universities, not us.

The key word here though is "officer." A new adult member joins at AB, a redesigned from the ground up very strong Lvl 1 occurs over the first 3-6 months. Everyone does this from 18yo HS student to brain surgeon to retired LtGen. The only dif is prior service can waive the one wknd BMT. At the end you are promoted to Amn, from there you can proceed with an enhanced version of the current adult program that'll take you thru TSgt, or at any time you can apply for OTS. The above is a discussion of education as a valid factor to consider in deciding who gets those management trainee slots & who does not.

Couple wierd exceptions to cover your question.
1) A HS diploma (or equiv) is required for membership. The 18yo HS student can attend Lvl I/BMT but cannot renew or promote to Amn until they have a diploma on file.
2) After Lvl 1, a prior service officer would apply to be appointed in their previous federal grade. That would be reviewed, & generally they will have to take the OBC & tech training to orient & qualify them for specific duties inside CAP. The grade may be withheld till that's done or granted upfront on the condition that it be done within a defined period of time (2 year) or lose grade. That's nothing dif than a refresher & job re-training, they should be expecting that much.
3) All officers will be taking  FEMA IS 244 managing volunteers as part of the OBC. It will also be included at the NCOA or SNCOA levels.

[DNall]

Of course we're legally civilians, which is all about not getting paid. If they could figure out how to obligate us to service & bind us to UCMJ w/o paying salary or benifits you can bet your butt they would.

I doubt that would be their preference though if it was it wouldn't be that big a deal to do since that is the sort of relationship SDFs have in their states -- unpaid, but bound by state military code (yes, some get paid on SAD, but that isn't always the case and is a matter of state choice). 

As I pointed out in the Temporary Reserve thread having unpaid volunteers obligated to meet military standards and obligations is nothing new.  Heck, for most of our history unpaid militia duty was the norm in the US. 

Yeah there's an imaginable point 30 years out in the future where in some hypothetical dream world we could use federally issued Auxiliary commissions & enlistments that function the same way as sstate versions do for SDFs, but right now or in teh foreseeable future that's counter-productive to even mention. The AF isn't going to accept anyting we don't overwhelmingly deserve w/ a long track record to prove it.

Their prefrence is for free labor functioning at or near their own standards to take as much pressure off their budget as possible so they can buy cool cool toys & blow up more crap. UCMJ is hardly ever a meaningful factor in military function - people don't do things to avoid court martial. However, you'll find quickly that accountability goes hand in hand with trust & opportunity.