What is college for, anyway?

-military-still-requires-officers-college-degrees


In 1940, fewer than one in 20 Americans had four years of college. By 2000, it was one in four. A college degree was once widely seen as proof of membership in the nation’s intellectual (and financial, gender, and racial) elite. Now, being a college graduate just means someone is able to pay tuition and wake up in time for at least 50% of their classes. And still, with very few exceptions, we require degrees of our commissioned officers.

A guy can come off the street with a degree from the University of Phoenix (acceptance rate: 100%) and be closer to getting a commission than an experienced NCO with outstanding evaluations. Officer selection boards might do just as well if they required a note from an applicant’s mom saying “He’s probably not a complete dumbass.”

Academic degrees aren’t great markers of leadership quality… and requiring degrees shuts out a lot of potential officers with a talent for the work. It’s time we changed that.

How we got here
In the early days of American history, the U.S. officers’ corps was a chaotic mix of service academy alumni, direct commissions, and the socially prominent who could afford to raise units by themselves. For a small nation with a tiny standing army, this was an adequate system.

Rapid economic development and world wars shifted the country’s security priorities. When the military moved towards being a large, professionalized force, it also had to find those better suited for leading and managing others.

American culture had long equated a college degree with the sort of polish that signaled real management material. Higher education seemed as good a marker of officer potential as anything else. It was better than picking officers based on their social standing — it certainly opened up the commissioned ranks to more Americans — but the logic that once made this prerequisite reasonable no longer holds.

Today, even experienced noncommissioned officers with unblemished records have to get check-the-box degrees in order to be eligible for most commissioning programs. Of course, not every good NCO would make a good officer, and screening of applicants should still matter. But if, after years of observation and training, we can’t figure out which enlisted would make good officers without the help of adjunct faculty at some third-tier university sitting outside a base’s gate — or even worse, online — then our whole system has big problems.

The not-so-crazy alternatives
The Marine Corps’ Meritorious Commissioning Program was a good example of a better way to attack this. It commissioned well-qualified enlisted as officers after they completed Officer Candidates School, then it gave them a deadline for finishing a degree while on active duty as an officer. It was a pretty efficient model — but the Corps got rid of it, because not enough people were applying due to cannibalization from other commissioning programs. It makes sense. Between a scholarship to go party at a state school and attending night school after a long day managing a platoon and all its problems, what would you choose?

Here’s where the oohrah/hooah crowds are going to say that every officer needs to be enlisted first. More mustangs in the officer corps would be great. That’s only one piece of the puzzle, though. The military needs to up its game across the officer selection process.

One alternative model is the British Army’s 44-week program at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. It is the service’s primary commissioning source taking both prior enlisted and civilian accessions...

continue -> http://taskandpurpose.com/2017-military-still-requires-officers-college-degrees/

 

Just another example that the government isn't all that different from the private sector, in many ways. One is a reflection of the other.

The notion was that college opens opportunities, but here you have the government making it that way.

I realize they're trying to use this requirement to screen out the riff-raff, but at the same time it's only contributing to the formation of a two-tiered divided class society. Government doing one thing with one hand and something entirely else with the other hand. Conflicting policy objectives. (Kind of like back when when the government was trying to get people to stop smoking while continuing subsidies to tobacco farmers)

 

I once read a article advocating for the creation of Third Lieutenants. Basically for the first 6 months of any newly commissioned officer's tenure (service academy or otherwise), they would be a 3LT and they would be outranked by NCO's E-6 and above. This time would be used to demonstrated fully to the young officer to listen to their freaking NCO's.

 

I suppose it would be called a Brevet Lieutenant.

That wouldn't work.

How about a Lance Lieutenant ?

Like the Marine Corps original Lance Corporal rank when a Private was made a L/Cpl for six months to see if he had what it took to become a real Corporal.

Todays Marine L/Cpl's are nothing more than glorified PFC's.

 

An officer must be willing to sacrifice those under their command for the good of the mission in addition the modern armed forces is more and more technologically sophisticated but the Academies proven they can prepare officers, Enlisted options though shouldn't be ignored. But are you saying college education doesn't matter at all in an officer especially if of value to the armed forces such as in technical STEM fields?

 

Federal LE requires a Bachelors degree as well. It can be in literally anything...

I think nowadays a degree is just proof that you can start something and stick to it for a few years. Which is admittedly worth quite a lot in any position of influence.

 

I know the FBI requires a college degree. Back in the old days all FBI Agents had a degree and were either accountants or lawyers.

All graduates from the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc) earn a Bachelor of Science degree.

 

Prior to 1940 a student couldn't just party thru college to a degree. Probably most high school seniors in 1940 knew more than most humanities college graduates today.

 

One way the military does address this is college credits for military study and the military is very agreeable to those in the service also pursuing a degree largely at government expensive. My child left a full scholarship (everything paid) at a top private university (like $50K a year if had to pay tuition) to sign up. A person who will put out the effort can earn college credits and obtain a degree faster while in the military, plus add military service to the resume, plus laws require government funded universities to work with students in the military on scheduling, relocation etc - and for graduate school (such as masters/PhD) it doesn't matter what the undergrad degree(s) are in.
However, also while it does affect pay, authority in some areas of the military isn't entirely on rank anymore, but also position. In practical terms, a person of lower rank can have more authority than a higher ranking officer. Even some enlisted can - in real terms - "outrank" an officer in authority in terms of assignments, tasks and missions.
Simply, one solution is to make it more possible for those in the military to also obtain a college degree if the person is seeking a military career. Of course, it does NOT take a college degree to be entered into officer training. Rather, a degree affects ranking.
I read somewhere that during the Vietnam war, if a man signed up and he had a college degree, he signed up as a leut. for the degree.

 

No they didn't.. Look at the men who rushed to volunteer after Pearl Harbor.. Most needed glasses, remedial reading and heavy duty dental work.

 

I never commented on the authors article.

It's just a blog of one persons opinion.

I did some research who the author is, a former Marine CH-53 and V-22 Osprey pilot now working for Bell helicopters today after putting in 20 years of service who writes articles for the Task and Purpose website. This article was posted under "opinion."

The author is Carl Forsing.

One thing caught my eye in his opinion piece.

He's kinda like me who discriminates from earning a BS from an AB degree and pays attentions where someone went to school at.

This Carl Forsing attended Boston University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The acceptance rate at Wharton School is around 20%. I think that's where Trump went to school.

I think Forsing is just opining as in "what if ?"

 

My son went the Marine Corps Enlisted Commissioning Education Program (MECEP) route. He applied for MECEP after making Sergeant and the Corps sent him to University of California San Diego and the tax payers paid for almost everything while he remained on active duty status as a Sergeant. It was required he had to earn a BS in one of the majors they picked out for him to choose from.

 

That has nothing to do with how the educational system has changed, does it?

 

They were NOT well educated.. don't kid yourself.. and Davos is taking education BACKWARDS.. She doing away with programs for special needs children. I always hated those Amway devotees.. They are mindless cheerleaders for a pyramid scheme with an emphasis on religion.

 

I don't know what it was like in the past, but now nearly all technical training in the AF equates also to university credits, though it will be towards a degree related to that technical area. Because of that, IF the person devotes time (and often there isn't a lot of spare time) to college study, that combines with earned university credit hours to allow rapidly obtaining a bachelor degree - but the person really has to put out the effort when on their own time. A person then only has to fill in a few gaps to get the bachelors degree. Generally (there are some exceptions) the masters program a person enters does NOT have to be in the field of the bachelor's degree if the university allows it.

 

Why do so many Democrats like you feel duty bound to try to divert every topic to partisan ranting?

High school dropouts and lazy asses are not well academically educated regardless of the era, so what you wrote is worthless.

The educational system was MUCH stricter in the past than now and a person only has to compare 8th grade tests of the past to the present to see the extreme difference.

As my comment, "special needs" programs generally SUCK. One of my children is dyslexic. They wanted to put her into "special needs" - because that takes the child out of required testing. Basically, "special needs" is to be put into a large room with a book for half a day and sent home, because the child no longer is relevant. We furiously refuses to allow it and demanded she remain is regular classes.
Now an adult, she was and is an academic genius. More academic awards and recognition that many would believe. Published. Lectured to PhDs. Full all-paid scholarship (tuition, books, dorm, food) at a top university. Had she gone into "special needs" the MOST she could have obtained was a no-education gratuitous high school diploma for sitting in a chair for 12 years.
"Special needs" is a dumping ground to get kids they think wouldn't do well on required testing out of the counting. Bad behavior? Put the kid in special needs. Any learning challenge? Dump the kid in special needs. Special needs means throwing the child away.

 

I met so many dumbazzes at college during freshman year that it is clearly NOT an "intellectual" group. It is mostly a gaggle of morons who were pressured by their parents to go to college and "be somebody".

In the military and naval/aerospace professions, the generals and admirals come from the academies, the colonels and boat-captains come from ROTC/NROTC, and the mustang majors and Lt-commanders come from OCS. It works.

Some kind of 4 year finishing school is required to make a good officer -- whether an academy or a college. That's how it works.

A good officer is normally about 25 years old or older.

NCO's that are 25 or older are great supervisors but not great officer material. The warrant officer program is their best future.

 

Enlisted first for officers is all crap.

Even so an occasional exceptional enlisted recruit is sometimes admitted to one of the academies. When I was in the USMC we sent one PFC to Annapolis.

 

A lance corporal and a second lieutenant are the two most dangerous people in the USMC.

Both are still relatively untrained and incompetent.

 

Never heard of that but it sounds good to me.

 

It's crap if you hate good officers.

Officers with no enlisted experience are good for nothing.

 

There were countless good officers who got battlefield commissions who never went to college in Western armies.

The modern battlefield is much more complex and automated, so is the paperwork and all the rest.

Certainly we need the best leaders---but they must be trained and not too dimwitted to do all required of them.

Perhaps the military should have their own in house officer's school---a better version of BNOC, lasting maybe four months instead of two for those qualified for it.

 

Enlistment teaches you very bad habits like yelling.

Officers must always remain calm.