Posted on Aug 13, 2015
Military Officers don't need a degree? What say you?
147K
628
303
51
49
2
Military Officers Don’t Need College Degrees
Military recruiters and top brass like to repeat the refrain that the average member of the armed forces is better educated than the average American. It’s true. According to the Defense Department, nearly 94% of enlisted personnel have a high-school diploma, while only 60% of Americans do. About 83% of officers have a bachelor’s degree, in comparison with 30% of the general population.
These statistics, though, involve a bit of self-selection: Most officers have a bachelor’s degree because becoming an officer generally requires one, though this prerequisite appears increasingly anachronistic.
For one thing, the requirement of a college degree is simply a box for officer candidates to check. It doesn’t matter to the armed forces where you went to school, what you studied, or how well you did—short of a minimal GPA level of about 2.5 out of 4.0.
Scholarships provided by the Reserve Officer Training Corps and military academies such as West Point and Annapolis may have more stringent criteria, but in general anyone with a four-year degree who can pass the basic background checks and physical requirements of the military may apply for Officer Candidate School.
Instead of mandating that officers have college degrees, the military should expand alternative avenues to officership. A few exceptions to the degree mandate already exist: Warrant officers or limited-duty officers—typically highly trained specialists in technical fields like avionics or equipment maintenance—have worked their way to officership. Their service is akin to apprenticeship, where useful knowledge is gained through practical experience, not textbook theory. Why not offer the same deal to other recruits?
Historically, a college degree signaled superior intelligence, critical reasoning and writing skills, and dedication. A degree holder could be expected to form logical, coherent arguments and effectively communicate ideas. But a college degree in 2015 no longer signals—let alone guarantees—much of anything.
According to a 2014 Lumina-Gallup poll, “just 11% of business leaders strongly agree that higher education institutions in this country are graduating students with the skills and competencies that their business needs, and 17% strongly disagree.” In a Chronicle for Higher Education survey published in March 2013, employers said that applicants with degrees lacked decision-making and problem-solving abilities, written and oral communication skills, adaptability, and even the capacity to manage multiple priorities.
Even more than in civilian environments, those are skills needed for war. If a college degree no longer confers them, then why should the armed forces require it at all? Beyond the usual arguments about the prohibitive cost for many high-school graduates unable to take on debt, a college degree isn’t needed to be successful. Peter Thiel, an accomplished tech businessman, offers a fellowship of $100,000 for aspiring entrepreneurs who want to skip college and build businesses instead. Companies started as a result now employ 200 people and have generated $200 million in economic activity, according to the fellowship.
Some may argue that obtaining a bachelor’s degree shows responsibility or maturity. Yet how much responsibility does a typical single, childless 22-year-old college senior have? Has he demonstrated greater responsibility than a 22-year-old corporal at the end of his first tour of duty? Has he even demonstrated greater responsibility than a 19-year-old private first class after six months of service?
The only mark of distinction that a college degree still indicates, perhaps, is dedication. It usually requires four or more years to achieve, and following through to the end suggests long-term commitment to a goal. Yet clearly, college and putting off the working world is not for everyone. In 2013, the six-year graduation rate in the U.S. was only 59%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Commitment is certainly important to success in the military, but the armed forces already have a way to measure and test it: a four-year enlistment. If aspiring officers must demonstrate commitment and responsibility, completing a four-year enlistment should suffice. If they must prove raw intellectual aptitude, high scores on the military’s own General Classification Test should be enough. If they must have general knowledge and the ability to think and write coherently, an exam akin to the State Department’s Foreign Service Officer Test would work.
A combination of these could easily form a new path to an officer’s commission—and providing an alternative to the bachelor’s degree would produce an even more qualified officer corps.
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/military-officers-dont-need-college-degrees [login to see] -lMyQjAxMTI1NzE3MzMxNTM3Wj
Military recruiters and top brass like to repeat the refrain that the average member of the armed forces is better educated than the average American. It’s true. According to the Defense Department, nearly 94% of enlisted personnel have a high-school diploma, while only 60% of Americans do. About 83% of officers have a bachelor’s degree, in comparison with 30% of the general population.
These statistics, though, involve a bit of self-selection: Most officers have a bachelor’s degree because becoming an officer generally requires one, though this prerequisite appears increasingly anachronistic.
For one thing, the requirement of a college degree is simply a box for officer candidates to check. It doesn’t matter to the armed forces where you went to school, what you studied, or how well you did—short of a minimal GPA level of about 2.5 out of 4.0.
Scholarships provided by the Reserve Officer Training Corps and military academies such as West Point and Annapolis may have more stringent criteria, but in general anyone with a four-year degree who can pass the basic background checks and physical requirements of the military may apply for Officer Candidate School.
Instead of mandating that officers have college degrees, the military should expand alternative avenues to officership. A few exceptions to the degree mandate already exist: Warrant officers or limited-duty officers—typically highly trained specialists in technical fields like avionics or equipment maintenance—have worked their way to officership. Their service is akin to apprenticeship, where useful knowledge is gained through practical experience, not textbook theory. Why not offer the same deal to other recruits?
Historically, a college degree signaled superior intelligence, critical reasoning and writing skills, and dedication. A degree holder could be expected to form logical, coherent arguments and effectively communicate ideas. But a college degree in 2015 no longer signals—let alone guarantees—much of anything.
According to a 2014 Lumina-Gallup poll, “just 11% of business leaders strongly agree that higher education institutions in this country are graduating students with the skills and competencies that their business needs, and 17% strongly disagree.” In a Chronicle for Higher Education survey published in March 2013, employers said that applicants with degrees lacked decision-making and problem-solving abilities, written and oral communication skills, adaptability, and even the capacity to manage multiple priorities.
Even more than in civilian environments, those are skills needed for war. If a college degree no longer confers them, then why should the armed forces require it at all? Beyond the usual arguments about the prohibitive cost for many high-school graduates unable to take on debt, a college degree isn’t needed to be successful. Peter Thiel, an accomplished tech businessman, offers a fellowship of $100,000 for aspiring entrepreneurs who want to skip college and build businesses instead. Companies started as a result now employ 200 people and have generated $200 million in economic activity, according to the fellowship.
Some may argue that obtaining a bachelor’s degree shows responsibility or maturity. Yet how much responsibility does a typical single, childless 22-year-old college senior have? Has he demonstrated greater responsibility than a 22-year-old corporal at the end of his first tour of duty? Has he even demonstrated greater responsibility than a 19-year-old private first class after six months of service?
The only mark of distinction that a college degree still indicates, perhaps, is dedication. It usually requires four or more years to achieve, and following through to the end suggests long-term commitment to a goal. Yet clearly, college and putting off the working world is not for everyone. In 2013, the six-year graduation rate in the U.S. was only 59%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Commitment is certainly important to success in the military, but the armed forces already have a way to measure and test it: a four-year enlistment. If aspiring officers must demonstrate commitment and responsibility, completing a four-year enlistment should suffice. If they must prove raw intellectual aptitude, high scores on the military’s own General Classification Test should be enough. If they must have general knowledge and the ability to think and write coherently, an exam akin to the State Department’s Foreign Service Officer Test would work.
A combination of these could easily form a new path to an officer’s commission—and providing an alternative to the bachelor’s degree would produce an even more qualified officer corps.
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/military-officers-dont-need-college-degrees [login to see] -lMyQjAxMTI1NzE3MzMxNTM3Wj
Officers
Education
Rank
Bachelors Degree
Commission
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 126
2
2
0
I suggest we look back in history for context to find our answer to this question. The requirements to be an officer in the Continental Army of the US as well as their adversary the British Army was the ability to read and write which was the hallmark of having been educated to at least some level at that time in history when illiteracy was common. As we look forward in history and forward to combat in this ear of this the Technology / Information age. We would be foolish not to require increased education in our leaders. Not to mention our adversaries around the world are focusing on educating their people to compete on the world stage. Many of those that our adversaries educate within their own countries serve in their military. We must stay head or at least on par with our adversaries around the world.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Personally, I think we should all be educated. Enlisted leaders need articulation and critical thinking skills. I agree, to a degree, with SSG Ricardo Marcial's post: departing our great military without a degree could be a very poor long term career choice. However, it depends upon the pursued career. Some careers require licensure in lieu of degrees, and licensed technicians can earn a decent living. So: a degree may not always be the answer, but education is always strongly recommended.
I think that SFC A.M. Drake may be hinting at how poorly some officers have been assigned to correlating career fields. A newly graduated lieutenant with an engineering degree may be assigned to a chemical or logistical branch. Of course, their placement is due to the OML (Order of Merit List) based upon individual assessments and achievements, because the system is not perfect. We all know that it is not. However, the most qualified will receive the best priorities and assignments. They have earned that. Irregardless, the point remains that many officers can still succeed without an educational background in their career field. So: a degree in their career field may not have been the only answer, but the core competencies received through their college curriculum may have been beneficial in their success.
The attainment of a degree rewards the graduate with general skills that high school graduates may not have: prioritization, time-management, critical-thinking, post-baccalaureate level articulation and understanding, and not to mention, an easily identifiable demonstration of commitment - the ability to follow through. At the very least, we must all be able to follow through. Therefore, we should, at the very least, seek to be educated.
I think that SFC A.M. Drake may be hinting at how poorly some officers have been assigned to correlating career fields. A newly graduated lieutenant with an engineering degree may be assigned to a chemical or logistical branch. Of course, their placement is due to the OML (Order of Merit List) based upon individual assessments and achievements, because the system is not perfect. We all know that it is not. However, the most qualified will receive the best priorities and assignments. They have earned that. Irregardless, the point remains that many officers can still succeed without an educational background in their career field. So: a degree in their career field may not have been the only answer, but the core competencies received through their college curriculum may have been beneficial in their success.
The attainment of a degree rewards the graduate with general skills that high school graduates may not have: prioritization, time-management, critical-thinking, post-baccalaureate level articulation and understanding, and not to mention, an easily identifiable demonstration of commitment - the ability to follow through. At the very least, we must all be able to follow through. Therefore, we should, at the very least, seek to be educated.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
In my opinion you want to have educated officers in our branches. Once you take away the education piece you lose something critical which to me is that knowledge gained from a civilian education which allows you to communicate and relate with the general public. That becomes a really big deal when you are running a base and having to keep a good relationship with the local community.
There are several enlisted members with advanced degrees nowadays. With all the online programs there is no excuse to not get one except laziness, so there is no need to lower the standard. A degree certainly doesn't make you a better leader, but it certainly opens your mind to things that will help you think outside the box.
Don't lower the bar to meet you, step your game up and check the boxes necessary to be an officer if that's what you want.
There are several enlisted members with advanced degrees nowadays. With all the online programs there is no excuse to not get one except laziness, so there is no need to lower the standard. A degree certainly doesn't make you a better leader, but it certainly opens your mind to things that will help you think outside the box.
Don't lower the bar to meet you, step your game up and check the boxes necessary to be an officer if that's what you want.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I got my commission only because I was an M.D. and didn't want to be an E2. My son, on the other hand blew my mind when he informed me upon entering Boston U that he was entering Air Force ROTC. (Pissed me off it wasn't Army) It worked well for him and he paid back more than his required years for his college education. Most importantly he already was a goal oriented kid but during college he shared a house with all Air Force ROTC guys and this experience matured him in leadership, planning and tolerance. Giving officers, or maybe forcing them into having such experiences, will give the military in general a higher likelihood of a superior officer. Others without this background may gain it, and some will have it already but looking at numbers it would be better to keep the hurdle higher.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I do not think the degree makes the officer. The best CO I've had did not have his degree but he new his business and had the ability to get things done better than anyone I've worked with. It seems like a lot of weight and value is placed on a degree now days when it's really not necessary. Specialized training and OJT go a long way in my book.
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
I should point out that many of us in the enlisted ranks have degrees. As services try to reduce their numbers, having a degree makes you that much more competitive. I have my graduate degree but I can really say it's prepared me to do my job in the Coast Guard any better than my shipmates that don't. Just food for thought.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Frankly I do think that Officers need those degrees, but I think a good many need to get rid of the chip on their shoulders that makes them think that degree makes them something special.
Their enlisted ranks are on occasions better educated and qualified to lead as well. We come up with some great ideas, only to have an officer with a lack of understanding or a fragile ego blocking the idea from advancement.
Their enlisted ranks are on occasions better educated and qualified to lead as well. We come up with some great ideas, only to have an officer with a lack of understanding or a fragile ego blocking the idea from advancement.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The most recent census data actually says that 85% of adults over the age of 25 have a high school diploma. I’m not sure were 60% came from, maybe you’re talking about how many people I see graduate the first go around. You bring up the fact that the requirement for a college degree is simply a box for the officer candidate to check, and the US military doesn’t tend to worry about what they studied or where they studied. I would bring up that the US military tends to work on a go/no-go mechanism; the same holds true with the enlisted ranks, for the most part they really don’t care what your grades are in high school, as long as you graduate.
The reason that textbook theory is important is because it offers background, and simply being a technical expert is not acceptable for a commissioned officer the United States military it really does require that credentialed background. Example of this to consider is that here on rally point we from time to time has some really excellent discussions on the U.S. Constitution, one of the reasons for these great discussions is the existence of the G.I. Bill which has allowed veterans to go to school, and an almost universal requirement exists for students to have one to two semesters of U.S. Constitution. I would say that the individual who has the ability to act as a judge in certain situations, and restrict the freedoms of other individuals should begin their career with this knowledge.
You say that anyone with a four-year degree who can pass the background checks and physical requirements of the military may apply for OCS, however I could go in and drop my resume off and apply to replace Donald Trump on the apprentice, I will not be hired, and a large amount of the applicants are not selected. It’s just like one of the nursing schools in my area you can apply to their school with a grade point average of 2.5 or better, but you will not be accepted if you have anything less than a 3.98 GPA, you can’t judge the quality of an organization off of its applicant pool.
As an air winger I worked with a lot of limited duty officers, and Warrant officers; it’s extremely difficult to see that pool of candidates being as energetic and innovative. I mean no offense to these officers, but they tend to be old, crotchety, and really set in their ways (Good for a lot of things, but you lose something as well). Also for my experience I want to call the path of a limited duty officer is something that is similar to an apprenticeship, in my MOS at least the individual did everything exactly the same as any other enlisted individual, and when they reached SSgt they were able to apply for a warrant, they’re not particularly groomed to be officers, there groomed to be SNCOs, and they become officers. They also tend to become really overinvolved in enlisted matters, every mustang that I’ve ever gotten to talk to has said the most shocking thing to them was how their focus went from detail to big picture overnight.
I’ve attended community college all the way up to a university off and on since 2003, and I’ve only experienced an increase in standards and expectations of students. I am obviously working off a smaller trendline, and it may be anecdotal but it is my experience and according to a 2014 Lumina–Gallup poll 72% of business leaders don’t feel strongly either way.
In your example of the fellowship if that entrepreneurship fails there is a great loss of money, and unfortunately some individuals would lose their job. On the other hand if we don’t have officers that are well-rounded individuals who can execute UCMJ fairly, conduct risk-benefit analysis, have a proven track record of interest in improving their own knowledge on a subject it is going to cost lives in a mortal sense. It is really easy in this time of war as being extremely formative for our military, there may come a time when a four-year enlistment only provides the experience of four years of barracks fuck-fuck games. I also think it’s easy for enlisted personnel to come to the conclusion that the only thing done by commissioned officers is telling enlisted personnel what to do (it may be the most important); this does not seem to be true though.
Adding my final big point on the subject would be that to be a commissioned officer you have to shown some self-investment, if you consider the average person who is 18 years old and enlisting in the nicest military they’ve only completed compulsory education funded by the state, they had to do little more than sit and listen, and they’ve managed to stay out of jail. The officer candidate on the other hand has spent a great deal of money, taken a measured risk, invested time in something that was not required of them by law, and finally they completed it.
As a general trend though I’ve heard that collaboration between enlisted and commissioned has improved over the decades, but also should be remembered that their very different roles.
The reason that textbook theory is important is because it offers background, and simply being a technical expert is not acceptable for a commissioned officer the United States military it really does require that credentialed background. Example of this to consider is that here on rally point we from time to time has some really excellent discussions on the U.S. Constitution, one of the reasons for these great discussions is the existence of the G.I. Bill which has allowed veterans to go to school, and an almost universal requirement exists for students to have one to two semesters of U.S. Constitution. I would say that the individual who has the ability to act as a judge in certain situations, and restrict the freedoms of other individuals should begin their career with this knowledge.
You say that anyone with a four-year degree who can pass the background checks and physical requirements of the military may apply for OCS, however I could go in and drop my resume off and apply to replace Donald Trump on the apprentice, I will not be hired, and a large amount of the applicants are not selected. It’s just like one of the nursing schools in my area you can apply to their school with a grade point average of 2.5 or better, but you will not be accepted if you have anything less than a 3.98 GPA, you can’t judge the quality of an organization off of its applicant pool.
As an air winger I worked with a lot of limited duty officers, and Warrant officers; it’s extremely difficult to see that pool of candidates being as energetic and innovative. I mean no offense to these officers, but they tend to be old, crotchety, and really set in their ways (Good for a lot of things, but you lose something as well). Also for my experience I want to call the path of a limited duty officer is something that is similar to an apprenticeship, in my MOS at least the individual did everything exactly the same as any other enlisted individual, and when they reached SSgt they were able to apply for a warrant, they’re not particularly groomed to be officers, there groomed to be SNCOs, and they become officers. They also tend to become really overinvolved in enlisted matters, every mustang that I’ve ever gotten to talk to has said the most shocking thing to them was how their focus went from detail to big picture overnight.
I’ve attended community college all the way up to a university off and on since 2003, and I’ve only experienced an increase in standards and expectations of students. I am obviously working off a smaller trendline, and it may be anecdotal but it is my experience and according to a 2014 Lumina–Gallup poll 72% of business leaders don’t feel strongly either way.
In your example of the fellowship if that entrepreneurship fails there is a great loss of money, and unfortunately some individuals would lose their job. On the other hand if we don’t have officers that are well-rounded individuals who can execute UCMJ fairly, conduct risk-benefit analysis, have a proven track record of interest in improving their own knowledge on a subject it is going to cost lives in a mortal sense. It is really easy in this time of war as being extremely formative for our military, there may come a time when a four-year enlistment only provides the experience of four years of barracks fuck-fuck games. I also think it’s easy for enlisted personnel to come to the conclusion that the only thing done by commissioned officers is telling enlisted personnel what to do (it may be the most important); this does not seem to be true though.
Adding my final big point on the subject would be that to be a commissioned officer you have to shown some self-investment, if you consider the average person who is 18 years old and enlisting in the nicest military they’ve only completed compulsory education funded by the state, they had to do little more than sit and listen, and they’ve managed to stay out of jail. The officer candidate on the other hand has spent a great deal of money, taken a measured risk, invested time in something that was not required of them by law, and finally they completed it.
As a general trend though I’ve heard that collaboration between enlisted and commissioned has improved over the decades, but also should be remembered that their very different roles.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm for requiring higher education for Officers. Regardless of the degree received it is the development of critical thinking skills that help seperate young officers from young enlisted for the majority. There is lots of room to expound on this but I'm stuck with just the cell phone for now.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We all know great enlisted troops without a degree that could make great officers. I'd rephrase the question: Do we think we would have a better officer corps if we lower the barriers to entry? My answer is probably not.
I think I'm better at my job because I was enlisted for 12 years first. There are more than enough avenues for qualified enlisted to commission. The stat in the article is that 94% of enlisted eventually get their degree. So how many people, as a percentage of the enlisted force, are not able to get their degree in time to commission?
I also firmly believe that anything that the military does differently from the rest of society makes it harder for all of us to transition to a civilian career. Like it or not, college is the first step in corporate America. And even if you don't learn everything that you need for a career in academia, it's still better than most other ways to expand what you know and find opportunities to try new things. Military experience can teach us a lot, but it's also very insular. Sometimes knowing the way it's done in the civilian world makes you a better officer than doing it the way the military has always done it.
I think I'm better at my job because I was enlisted for 12 years first. There are more than enough avenues for qualified enlisted to commission. The stat in the article is that 94% of enlisted eventually get their degree. So how many people, as a percentage of the enlisted force, are not able to get their degree in time to commission?
I also firmly believe that anything that the military does differently from the rest of society makes it harder for all of us to transition to a civilian career. Like it or not, college is the first step in corporate America. And even if you don't learn everything that you need for a career in academia, it's still better than most other ways to expand what you know and find opportunities to try new things. Military experience can teach us a lot, but it's also very insular. Sometimes knowing the way it's done in the civilian world makes you a better officer than doing it the way the military has always done it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm a little behind in weighing in, but I can't pass on this topic. I'm former enlisted; came into the Army with a degree from a top university; was selected for OCS, but turned it down to go back to civvie life; and now I'm about to finish a PhD and start teaching philosophy. You'd think I'd be on the "must have degree" side of the debate, but I'm not. It is much tougher to 'build' good leaders than it is to develop natural leadership talent. It's that simple. There are so many more natural leaders enlisting every year than there are being commissioned, and for the most part we throw away that talent. Not to say that education isn't important. It absolutely is. But keep this in mind: Clausewitz (the greatest military scholar in western history) started off as a lance-corporal. He earned a commission and was climbing the ranks for nine years before the Prussian army sent him for a formal education. That sort of thing doesn't happen much these days, but what would the military look like if every private who walks in the door KNOWS that hard work and demonstrated leadership ability will put them on a track to the general's office? And they we give them the best training AND education available. Maybe that's sending the very best kids right from basic training to West Point. Maybe ROTC for those who have been in a little while. Maybe it's promoting good NCOs straight to LT without a degree at all.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google