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
I don't buy this at all. It is taking a stab a the officer corps. The school does matter. It has to be a federal accredited school. You just can't go to any school and become an officer. Even then you have to go to an OCS Board or be selected to contract while you are in ROTC. There are many out there that can't even get that far. We don't have an issue with officer strength. Why would we change it? The military can be picky when it comes to officers.
I think what it comes down to is that we serve the Nation. Everyone isn't entitled to become an officer. Any of us can work our way to become one. I was enlisted first and then commission but if one day I thought "Hey, I should get be handed a commission" then I would be more focused on myself than my nation.
I think what it comes down to is that we serve the Nation. Everyone isn't entitled to become an officer. Any of us can work our way to become one. I was enlisted first and then commission but if one day I thought "Hey, I should get be handed a commission" then I would be more focused on myself than my nation.
(50)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
CPT (Join to see) - I see it more as a stab at contemporary "institutions of higher education". College degrees are not what they used to be. In an effort to make college a universal right/privilege, the requirements for both entry and graduation have been watered down over the years. Colleges, even "public" ones, are competing for the ever-present federal subsidies and no longer care much about who comes in. In fact, the more federal aid the applicant is expected to receive, the better the chance they'll get in.
Also, when everyone has a bachelor's degree, then it is no longer a discriminator.
Also, when everyone has a bachelor's degree, then it is no longer a discriminator.
(1)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
PO1 (Verify To See) - PA School. for the Navy it's Independent Medical Corps men. than PA
(0)
(0)
SSG Greg Miech
One Commentator did an arbitrary for her father who retired from the FBI. They were told if they went for a Sociology degree he would stop the tuition and board, as he got a Sociology Degree for the agents had to get a degree to remain in the FBI at the time. Considered a waste of money. Would an officer with at least 36 hours of college in their assigned branches be of benefit? I tried talking to infantry officers about Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and battles to which they were not very familiar with. Guess they were waiting on the movie.
(0)
(0)
SPC(P) Timeo Williams
SSG Warren Swan
There's a delineation of responsibility between both ranks.
I had the opportunity to speak to a retired SFC in the Army who was part of SFAB.
I asked him about the planning officers do and whether he's be interested in it. He probably said,"Hell no. I tried it once and it ain't for me. And that's true for most of the senior enlisted men in our unit. I'm glad to not take part in that."
The planning process, which is in itself an outcome of theoretical knowledge combined with logical thinking is an intellectually heavy process.
Much has been said about college degrees recently. We live in a very fast and adapting world. College is built to withstand that - with general education courses taught to allow the brain to frequent a wide variety of mental models and thought patterns - that is quite difficult to receive anywhere else.
There's a delineation of responsibility between both ranks.
I had the opportunity to speak to a retired SFC in the Army who was part of SFAB.
I asked him about the planning officers do and whether he's be interested in it. He probably said,"Hell no. I tried it once and it ain't for me. And that's true for most of the senior enlisted men in our unit. I'm glad to not take part in that."
The planning process, which is in itself an outcome of theoretical knowledge combined with logical thinking is an intellectually heavy process.
Much has been said about college degrees recently. We live in a very fast and adapting world. College is built to withstand that - with general education courses taught to allow the brain to frequent a wide variety of mental models and thought patterns - that is quite difficult to receive anywhere else.
(0)
(0)
37
37
0
Military personnel without degrees going in, well maybe. Military personnel leaving the military without a degree......BIG MISTAKE.
(37)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Maj Walt Stachowicz - I mean no disrespect Maj. But, I am in the National Guard. I do my ATs etc. Deployed to Iraq and Katrina. I perform my job and give it 110% Now that said sir, I started school back in 08. I had an AT to go to 3 weeks after school started (my 1st semester). We convoyed to SC. Took us about 4 days. I requested my instructor send me my homework via email which he did. On my down time, I did my homework (there wasn't very much of that). For one evening, our CO decided to give us some free time and allow us some down time to go to the mall. At first he asked if I was going to go with them. I informed him that I will stay back and do my homework. Then, the only other qualified bus driver didn't want to go. So I stepped up and drove the bus and took them there (CO included). CO requested me to go with them and relax. I tactfully declined. I stayed with my bus and did my homework. All said and done, I was only getting about 3 hours of sleep per night. I walked out of AT and completed my semester with a 4.0. I didn't have late assignments etc. I now have a Bachelor's, am a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and also have over 300 credit hours in Army Correspondence Courses. It can be done (Active or not), it just requires the will of said soldier to get it done.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Apparently it cut off my post - (Cont) per night. All said and done. I walked out of AT and finished my semester with a 4.0. No late assignments or anything. I now have my Bachelor's and am a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH). I also have over 300 credit hours in Army Corespondence courses. So it can be done (Active or not). It just requires the will of said soldier to get it done.
(1)
(0)
Maj Walt Stachowicz
Sorry if I offended anyone with my sarcasm. I did not have the opportunities that you young people do today. Please accept this from a grunt who joined 47 years ago, and no one joined the Marines in '68 for the educational benefits. We did not have shifts, and were often on call 24/7 even when Stateside. It's great that you can now spend some of your time improving yourselves rather than cleaning rifles, polishing brass and boots, etc. I'm an old curmudgeon, I guess, but my son had the same difficulties just working on his Professional Military Education between his 3 deployments to the sandbox, never mind working on an advanced civilian degree. They always have a reason for sending you TAD for more MOS training. So, SSgt Marcial, I did not make a big mistake, I just never had the opportunity that you were afforded. Times change.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Maj Walt Stachowicz - As an 11B in SOCOM in the 90s taking classes was only slightly less than impossible. I knew a lot of soft skill guys working 9-5s that were able to knock out degrees, but for us grunts not so much. :O(
(0)
(0)
28
28
0
A few thoughts:
- Interesting that a former Marine LT would argue that a degree does not matter to be a military officer while he is pursuing an MBA and a master's in public policy. If he had the strength of his convictions that a degree does not matter then he would not pursue a higher degree.
- The statement that "It doesn’t matter to the armed forces that...what you studied, or how well you did" is an opinion, not a fact.
- The statement that "the military should expand alternative avenues to officership" merits consideration but the author provides no recommendations other than a four year enlistment.
- "a college degree in 2015 no longer signals—let alone guarantees—much of anything". This is more of a condemnation of the American higher education system (if accurate) than it is of military officer requirements.
- The author's arguments would carry more weight if he articulated and showed downstream effects of his arguments. He only argues at the entry and tactical levels and ignores the consequences at the operational/strategic levels of war and what happens 10/20/30 years from now if the military implements what he argues.
- Interesting that a former Marine LT would argue that a degree does not matter to be a military officer while he is pursuing an MBA and a master's in public policy. If he had the strength of his convictions that a degree does not matter then he would not pursue a higher degree.
- The statement that "It doesn’t matter to the armed forces that...what you studied, or how well you did" is an opinion, not a fact.
- The statement that "the military should expand alternative avenues to officership" merits consideration but the author provides no recommendations other than a four year enlistment.
- "a college degree in 2015 no longer signals—let alone guarantees—much of anything". This is more of a condemnation of the American higher education system (if accurate) than it is of military officer requirements.
- The author's arguments would carry more weight if he articulated and showed downstream effects of his arguments. He only argues at the entry and tactical levels and ignores the consequences at the operational/strategic levels of war and what happens 10/20/30 years from now if the military implements what he argues.
(28)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM, I don't believe his point is that education doesn't matter. More so that a random degree in XYZ from State U given the current statistics presented does not in and of itself make a good yard stick for measuring aptitude for officership. That there might be other tools, methodologies and metrics that could be used that might be a more accurate predictor. Not that education is inherently bad. He does mention some of the DoD's existing standardized testing as well as the State Department's testing as possible methodologies as better measures of aptitude then the current degree/GPA yes or no block.
It would require a complete re-write of our entire Officer PME that is based on the assumption of a BA/BS degree and builds to the Masters Degree level and potentially the PhD level depending on schools selected to attend. This is even true for the enlisted side where AF Enlisted promotion to E8 requires an Associates Degree to even be eligible for promotion with a unofficial push of a BA/BA/Masters to be truly competitive.
It would require a complete re-write of our entire Officer PME that is based on the assumption of a BA/BS degree and builds to the Masters Degree level and potentially the PhD level depending on schools selected to attend. This is even true for the enlisted side where AF Enlisted promotion to E8 requires an Associates Degree to even be eligible for promotion with a unofficial push of a BA/BA/Masters to be truly competitive.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Very well said Sir. I have seen the Army as a Soldier, NCO, Warrant Officer, Company Grade Officer and now as a field grade. As your span of influence increases as an Officer, it is imperative that you acquire and maintain polished communication skills. These skills can only be gained through practice and the pursuit of higher education.
Air Cav!
Air Cav!
(5)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Well written Sir! I have to wonder if it is just not a project he needs for his graduate education and not something he feels passionate about. Many of us have been required to write such papers and I hope I have done better than you clearly ripped this piece of work.
(0)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
I think this is especially true for technical career fields. If I had not studied engineering, I would have been lost when some of my 100-lb brain folks were trying to explain to me what we were developing/building within acquisitions. And even worse, I wouldn't have been able to contribute anything technical back to them or make an informed decision on which direction to take the platform. Without the background, yes, I could have simply managed them and trusted that they knew what they were doing even if they were speaking a different language to me But is that leadership? Is that being an officer?
(0)
(0)
24
24
0
Advanced education has always been a hallmark of the military officer. If anything it is needed more now in the complex world we live in.
A degree will not never equate to better leadership. Leadership skill sets are developed early through primary NCOs and seasoned company grade officers. Continued education to include a masters degree enhance the process.
Changing this environment will significantly damage our military institutions.
A degree will not never equate to better leadership. Leadership skill sets are developed early through primary NCOs and seasoned company grade officers. Continued education to include a masters degree enhance the process.
Changing this environment will significantly damage our military institutions.
(24)
(0)
MSG Toney Reese
This degree stuff is a bunch of elitism.Every war we fought up until the Viet Nam error did it become a requirement. There are some Good NCO's who would make good officers, but they put all kinds of limit on you. Age, time in service and selection process. I spent 23 years in the service and I saw the good nurse who only had 2yr degrees or diploma nurse force out are made to get their BNS.
There is nothing wrong in having a degree. But Leader always rises to the top and many only have high schools diploma. If you want an officer Corp that understand the men and women they command then you should be looking to convert NCO into Line Duty Officers like the Navy. Why keep this men and women from being commissioned. There are a lot of good men and women who did not have the money or opportunity to go to school and get a degree.
I was a senior NCO and I got my degree, but I was then two old. I was 33yrs old with 12 yrs of service. I served another 9 years before leaving the service when I had 3 more years on my enlistment. The reason what I was offered a better paying job and I took it, but I would have stayed if the military would have offer me a warrant or commission.
There is nothing wrong in having a degree. But Leader always rises to the top and many only have high schools diploma. If you want an officer Corp that understand the men and women they command then you should be looking to convert NCO into Line Duty Officers like the Navy. Why keep this men and women from being commissioned. There are a lot of good men and women who did not have the money or opportunity to go to school and get a degree.
I was a senior NCO and I got my degree, but I was then two old. I was 33yrs old with 12 yrs of service. I served another 9 years before leaving the service when I had 3 more years on my enlistment. The reason what I was offered a better paying job and I took it, but I would have stayed if the military would have offer me a warrant or commission.
(2)
(0)
LTC Brad Lord / PMP
Certainly concur that many NCOs would make excellent officers- I personally know many. The degree is less about direct line leadership than it is about functioning effectively on large military staffs and the complex problems those large units face around the world.
Many NCOs have earned degrees with the incredible education benefits in place since 9/11. BTW officers have taken advantage of the some benefits and earned advanced degrees also.
No other institution has offered so much with regard to education benefits. Really no excuse for all service members not to take advantage of these. Even a giant like Raytheon that I worked for after retirement does not have the educational benefits the service member has.
Great discussion and good points by all!
Many NCOs have earned degrees with the incredible education benefits in place since 9/11. BTW officers have taken advantage of the some benefits and earned advanced degrees also.
No other institution has offered so much with regard to education benefits. Really no excuse for all service members not to take advantage of these. Even a giant like Raytheon that I worked for after retirement does not have the educational benefits the service member has.
Great discussion and good points by all!
(4)
(0)
SP6 Ron W.
SFC A.M. Drake - It was a very well-written article, and your presentation of it should result in a good pros & cons discussion. Thinking way back, my inclination based upon my memories is to fall in favor of all commissioned officers having a relevant college degree.
(1)
(0)
Maj Walt Stachowicz
LTC Brad Lord / PMP - You were fortunate, Sir, to serve in a Military that had benefits towards a degree. Some of us were thrust into the position and had to use our common sense in lieu of a degree. Most of us performed well. There is no reason to assume that future officers may not perform well without the benefit of a degree. Dwell time has limited many from pursuing advanced education, as they were studying their military lessons to preclude casualties to themselves or their subordinates. Leadership is the goal, not a sheepskin.
(0)
(0)
20
20
0
The article makes an excellent case that academia (universities) are failing to educate their students in critical thinking and decision-making skills. Rather than make changes to officer accession standards, why don't we hold the universities accountable?
(20)
(0)
COL John Hudson
Joseph, in retirement, I teach at four local school districts. I have learned one undisputable truth...you can't force a student to learn. I have degrees in Business, Management, Public Administration and Military History, all because I WANTED to learn, applied myself with motivation, focus, and initiative to research appropriate subject material...aspects not so common with today's generation. I submit that Universities don't "teach," they sell education. Sit in a classroom with a mushroom attitude and walk out the same. JCH, COL, USA (Ret)
(5)
(0)
Maj Walt Stachowicz
COL Hudson, I agree that not everybody wants to learn. However, there are those among us who have a passion for learning, and a disdain for the process of earning (buying) a degree. I've never bought one myself, but I am a life-long learner who keeps up with the times and the market, and have attained respect in my professional community. As an officer, I had to compete with my peers in many ways, and seemed to be successful without the benefit of any letters behind my name.
(1)
(0)
COL John Hudson
Good on you, Walt. Encouraging to know there are still young people who truly do apply themselves to learn what they can and apply it to their daily lives and career...we need many thousands exactly like you!
(1)
(0)
COL John Hudson
Maj Walt Stachowicz - Walt, I completed a tour at the "Secretariat of the Army," a organization that holds Boards for Administrative Action for military officers. The subject of my tour was 4,000 applicants to attend Command & General Staff College full time active duty. Obviously, lots of Reserve Officers wanted that as well. Each one of US had to review ALL 4,000 applicants using a strict rating scheme (huge headaches and eye spots end of each day from reading every single military file!!!). 99.9% had experience, TIG and educational degrees...all except ONE. I was pulled away to form an ad hoc board consisting of our BG Board Head, one Colonel, two CW5s and ME - This officer, a CW2, had NO college or formal advanced education whatsoever and we were tasked to judge him for promotion and retention! DANG! The BG stated, "Okay, let's vote." I replied, "No sir, I don't know this Officer and must insist I see his file." Ooh wee - you shouda seen the looks on those others faces - but I wouldn't back down (I was an LTC at the time). I took my time to review this man, his formal picture with awards, his military track record, all OERs, etc. He had educated himself through every ARMY exercise and SME course available to him during the decades he had completed. In other words, he had a 100% practical ARMY education. I reported my completion and ready to vote...My hand shot up with all the others for a full pass on promotion to CW3 and Retention. Good for this ONE exception...but I would never have allowed ME to have to fall on an Administrative Board to judge my future in that manner.
(0)
(0)
17
17
0
A college degree is much more than a certificate of attendance. It's proof that the individual had the determination to get one, the skills and study habits to learn, and the ability to grasp the bigger picture. All these are skills essential to becoming a successful officer. When I was getting my master's degree at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California we used to joke that a person who obtains a masters degree has read just about everything important to read in his field of study. A person who obtains a PhD has read "everything" there is on the subject and added a knew body of work through his or her own research and study. I didn't have a bachelors degree when I graduated from OCS. I went back to college seven years later and got one. After that I got my masters in national security affairs at NPGS. Then I spent three years going to classes on nights and weekends doing the coursework toward a PhD. An assignment to China and a life-threatening illness prevented me from ever getting around to writing a dissertation. I value every bit of education I got. I didn't do it for the Army or to win promotion. I did it for myself.
(17)
(0)
11
11
0
I'm split on this one. I don't think an undergraduate degree today is what it used to be. I've met plenty of Soldier (Enlisted and Officer) who have degrees but can't effectively communicate in writing. It is good to have a few prerequisites to become an officer, but I wouldn't rule out changing the degree requirement. I think it would be good to accept a certain percentage of top NCOs and junior Soldiers who don't have degrees into OCS if they could meet certain standards such as acceptable writing and problem solving.
(11)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
I have both a BSN and MSHS and truly believe the process of getting a degree is as much as what the degree is about. You buy a 500-1000 page book and you have to figure out really quick what is pertinent and what is not. What is important changes with instructors and you have to figure that out which I believe does relate to dealing with people later. Find the time to work, sleep, and study can be a challenge. My last semester I would be up till 0300 prepping for clinical that started 0630 that I received the the assignment 1600 the previous day. It was a lot more than just getting a degree.
(4)
(0)
MAJ(P) (Join to see)
MAJ Byron Oyler - Sir, that may be the case for our specific degrees, but many are not that rigorous. I'm not discounting the value of a degree. I'm working on my MBA Full Time. However, I believe it would be interesting to allow an NCO to commission without a degree and simply complete one by a certain milestone. It is just a thought, not like anyone here has the power to make that happen.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Warrant officers are commission from W2 and up. It is a great path for those that want more than an enlistment but less than going to college.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I've found through talking with doctors that med school and flight training are eerily similar, in all the worst ways. Getting a degree helps prepare you for that.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
BLUF: The general pre-requisite of a bachelors degree for commissioning has nothing to do with an officer’s duties as a company grade officer, and is simply among the first steps in producing a pool of highly educated, intellectually adaptable officers from which to groom and develop our very senior military leaders
A quick survey on this thread of those who support the idea that maybe one doesn’t need to have a bachelors degree to become an officer seems to be focused on the argument that an experienced E5 or E6 or E7 could perform tactically and technically at a higher level than a new 2LT, 1LT, or even a CPT (noting, of course, that the Army promotes folks to captain after just 3 years). These arguments seem to reflect the reality that the interaction with officers that such a huge proportion of the military has is extremely limited, and the population of officers with which such a huge proportion of the military interacts consists of 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs. Think about it: in a typical brigade combat team or division (where the bulk of the Army’s forces are located), how often does an average E-5 interact with an officer above the rank of captain? Even at a battalion level, the average E-7 doesn’t have hours of face time with the battalion commander, XO, or S3. For most of the enlisted and NCO population of the Army, substantial interaction with officers above the rank of CPT just does not occur. Yes, I am saying that the majority of the Army (which likely transfers to the majority of the military) has very little clue what officers above the rank of O-3 actually do, so the arguments that focus on 2LTs, 1LTs, or captains are rather irrelevant in this discussion.
However, there is probably room for a conversation about how smart, talented enlisted Soldiers and NCOs with loads of experience and leadership talent could very probably do just as good or better a job tactically and technically as an O-1, O-2, or O-3. Evidence: lots of E-7s, and some E-6s, when assigned as platoon sergeants, end up serving as platoon leaders during gaps in the platoon leader position, often for extended periods of time, and often perform admirably. For example, the first platoon I led, in Germany from 2001-2002, for the year prior to my arrival, was led by a very talented E-7 with over 20 years of experience; I have no doubt that the platoon’s competency and readiness dipped at least a little when he departed a week or so after my arrival. As another example, during my first deployment to Iraq, one of the companies in the battalion lost its commander and executive officer, both KIA, in about an 18-hour period. The 1SG assumed command, and an E-7 from the S3 section was temporarily assigned as the XO. The company continued the fight admirably (and the 1SG received a Silver Star and the E-7 a BSM-V). I’m certain there are thousands of similar anecdotes that illustrate the potential interchangeability of smart, talented, experienced Soldiers and NCOs with 2LT, 1LT, and CPTs.
Here’s the problem with this overall argument, and the anecdotal examples I’ve provided (and others that surely exist), suggesting that the military should start commissioning folks without bachelors degrees in mass quantities: the general pre-requisite of having a bachelors degree for commissioning isn’t really focused on the jobs 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs perform.
Having said this, however, I’m certain that most company grade officers perform their duties to a higher standard now than if they didn’t have a bachelors degree, as such a huge part of a junior officer’s job has very little to do with technical and tactical competency. Think about what a junior officer does on a daily basis--how much of that deals with technical and tactical competency? Some, for sure, especially in the field or on deployment. I’d estimate, based on my own 9-year experience as a company grade officer, that, say, something like 40% of what I did dealt with technical and tactical competency. The other 60% had nothing to do with technical and tactical competency, but rather on an ability developed during my undergraduate education to analyze and understand a problem, develop a solution, and coordinate the means with which to implement the solution (in general terms).
So, if the general pre-requisite of having a bachelors degree for commissioning isn’t really focused on the jobs 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs perform, why does the military have an established general requirement that to be commissioned, one needs a bachelors degree? Simply, as part of the first steps of producing a pool of highly educated, intellectually adaptable officers from which to groom and develop our very senior military leaders. For example, the new Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen Mark Milley. You can read is bio here: http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/gen_milley/gen_milley.htm. Here’s the part about his education: “Gen. Milley’s education includes a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from Princeton University, Masters Degrees from Columbia University (International Relations), and from the United States Naval War College (National Security and Strategic Studies). He is also a graduate of the MIT Seminar XXI National Security Studies Program.” Was GEN Milley’s BS from Princeton something that allowed him to perform in a stellar manner as a company grade officer? Maybe, but maybe not. It did, however, absolutely lay the foundation for him to complete two masters degrees and an MIT seminar, and enabled his development as a strategist and intellectual, developmental steps along the path of educating one of our senior leaders. (Full disclosure: I’m now a senior major with a bachelors degree from West Point, an associates degree from the Defense Language Institute, a masters degree and a graduate certificate from Georgetown University, a masters degree from the Turkish Army War College, and a certificate in strategic studies from the US Army War College....so of course I’m extremely biased in this conversation).
Part of the point the author of the original article is making is about the quality of education in today’s bachelors degree. It is an undeniable truth that some college degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on; these include those from unaccredited, for-profit institutions. However, the DoD doesn’t recognize such degrees as valid, so it seems illogical to focus on such degrees. The bigger question the author raised is about the value of a bachelors degree, period. I’d note here (based on reports such as that found at http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf and my own observations at Georgetown and in the Interagency over the last several years) that the author’s argument here likely has been shaped by his own position of privilege (yes, a Harvard student and military officer represents a position of privilege in our country) and the perceptions and perspectives that likely dominate the author’s current environment. For example, as I observed at Georgetown, the fact that only around 30% of Americans actually have bachelors degrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bachelors-degrees-at-record-level.html?_r=0) was mind-blowing to most students and faculty, who seemed to be of the perspective that “everyone goes to college.” One professor, when asked where his high-school senior planned to go to college (because, yes, “everyone goes to college”), the professor responded with “you know, the usual: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Brown.” In a country where just 81% of high school students graduating is celebrated as a “record high” (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-new-record-high), some level of cognitive dissonance exists in perspectives of those, like the author, in positions of privilege.
On the author’s point that GPA doesn’t matter: maybe it doesn’t. Is a 4.0 from West Point or Princeton comparable to a 4.0 from East Tennessee State University (ETSU)? Probably not! But even at West Point, GPA is essentially irrelevant: the top ranked graduate and the bottom ranked graduate every year both commission as equals as 2LTs. One could probably do a study comparing undergraduate GPA with promotion rates; from anecdotal observation, I’d hypothesize that undergraduate GPA likely is not correlated with promotion rates. For the Army, the anecdotal evidence could be in BZ promotion to O-4 or O-5. For YG2000 from West Point (my year group), those select few that have been BZ to O-4 or O-5 have generally not been the highest ranked undergraduates (they haven’t been the lowest ranked, either). And I use ETSU for a reason: one of my peers is an ETSU graduate, and had a horrible undergraduate GPA, and is among the most talented and most respected field grade officers I know. And the only part that his undergraduate degree played in his development was providing a substantial base for future development.
A quick survey on this thread of those who support the idea that maybe one doesn’t need to have a bachelors degree to become an officer seems to be focused on the argument that an experienced E5 or E6 or E7 could perform tactically and technically at a higher level than a new 2LT, 1LT, or even a CPT (noting, of course, that the Army promotes folks to captain after just 3 years). These arguments seem to reflect the reality that the interaction with officers that such a huge proportion of the military has is extremely limited, and the population of officers with which such a huge proportion of the military interacts consists of 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs. Think about it: in a typical brigade combat team or division (where the bulk of the Army’s forces are located), how often does an average E-5 interact with an officer above the rank of captain? Even at a battalion level, the average E-7 doesn’t have hours of face time with the battalion commander, XO, or S3. For most of the enlisted and NCO population of the Army, substantial interaction with officers above the rank of CPT just does not occur. Yes, I am saying that the majority of the Army (which likely transfers to the majority of the military) has very little clue what officers above the rank of O-3 actually do, so the arguments that focus on 2LTs, 1LTs, or captains are rather irrelevant in this discussion.
However, there is probably room for a conversation about how smart, talented enlisted Soldiers and NCOs with loads of experience and leadership talent could very probably do just as good or better a job tactically and technically as an O-1, O-2, or O-3. Evidence: lots of E-7s, and some E-6s, when assigned as platoon sergeants, end up serving as platoon leaders during gaps in the platoon leader position, often for extended periods of time, and often perform admirably. For example, the first platoon I led, in Germany from 2001-2002, for the year prior to my arrival, was led by a very talented E-7 with over 20 years of experience; I have no doubt that the platoon’s competency and readiness dipped at least a little when he departed a week or so after my arrival. As another example, during my first deployment to Iraq, one of the companies in the battalion lost its commander and executive officer, both KIA, in about an 18-hour period. The 1SG assumed command, and an E-7 from the S3 section was temporarily assigned as the XO. The company continued the fight admirably (and the 1SG received a Silver Star and the E-7 a BSM-V). I’m certain there are thousands of similar anecdotes that illustrate the potential interchangeability of smart, talented, experienced Soldiers and NCOs with 2LT, 1LT, and CPTs.
Here’s the problem with this overall argument, and the anecdotal examples I’ve provided (and others that surely exist), suggesting that the military should start commissioning folks without bachelors degrees in mass quantities: the general pre-requisite of having a bachelors degree for commissioning isn’t really focused on the jobs 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs perform.
Having said this, however, I’m certain that most company grade officers perform their duties to a higher standard now than if they didn’t have a bachelors degree, as such a huge part of a junior officer’s job has very little to do with technical and tactical competency. Think about what a junior officer does on a daily basis--how much of that deals with technical and tactical competency? Some, for sure, especially in the field or on deployment. I’d estimate, based on my own 9-year experience as a company grade officer, that, say, something like 40% of what I did dealt with technical and tactical competency. The other 60% had nothing to do with technical and tactical competency, but rather on an ability developed during my undergraduate education to analyze and understand a problem, develop a solution, and coordinate the means with which to implement the solution (in general terms).
So, if the general pre-requisite of having a bachelors degree for commissioning isn’t really focused on the jobs 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs perform, why does the military have an established general requirement that to be commissioned, one needs a bachelors degree? Simply, as part of the first steps of producing a pool of highly educated, intellectually adaptable officers from which to groom and develop our very senior military leaders. For example, the new Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen Mark Milley. You can read is bio here: http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/gen_milley/gen_milley.htm. Here’s the part about his education: “Gen. Milley’s education includes a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from Princeton University, Masters Degrees from Columbia University (International Relations), and from the United States Naval War College (National Security and Strategic Studies). He is also a graduate of the MIT Seminar XXI National Security Studies Program.” Was GEN Milley’s BS from Princeton something that allowed him to perform in a stellar manner as a company grade officer? Maybe, but maybe not. It did, however, absolutely lay the foundation for him to complete two masters degrees and an MIT seminar, and enabled his development as a strategist and intellectual, developmental steps along the path of educating one of our senior leaders. (Full disclosure: I’m now a senior major with a bachelors degree from West Point, an associates degree from the Defense Language Institute, a masters degree and a graduate certificate from Georgetown University, a masters degree from the Turkish Army War College, and a certificate in strategic studies from the US Army War College....so of course I’m extremely biased in this conversation).
Part of the point the author of the original article is making is about the quality of education in today’s bachelors degree. It is an undeniable truth that some college degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on; these include those from unaccredited, for-profit institutions. However, the DoD doesn’t recognize such degrees as valid, so it seems illogical to focus on such degrees. The bigger question the author raised is about the value of a bachelors degree, period. I’d note here (based on reports such as that found at http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf and my own observations at Georgetown and in the Interagency over the last several years) that the author’s argument here likely has been shaped by his own position of privilege (yes, a Harvard student and military officer represents a position of privilege in our country) and the perceptions and perspectives that likely dominate the author’s current environment. For example, as I observed at Georgetown, the fact that only around 30% of Americans actually have bachelors degrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bachelors-degrees-at-record-level.html?_r=0) was mind-blowing to most students and faculty, who seemed to be of the perspective that “everyone goes to college.” One professor, when asked where his high-school senior planned to go to college (because, yes, “everyone goes to college”), the professor responded with “you know, the usual: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Brown.” In a country where just 81% of high school students graduating is celebrated as a “record high” (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-new-record-high), some level of cognitive dissonance exists in perspectives of those, like the author, in positions of privilege.
On the author’s point that GPA doesn’t matter: maybe it doesn’t. Is a 4.0 from West Point or Princeton comparable to a 4.0 from East Tennessee State University (ETSU)? Probably not! But even at West Point, GPA is essentially irrelevant: the top ranked graduate and the bottom ranked graduate every year both commission as equals as 2LTs. One could probably do a study comparing undergraduate GPA with promotion rates; from anecdotal observation, I’d hypothesize that undergraduate GPA likely is not correlated with promotion rates. For the Army, the anecdotal evidence could be in BZ promotion to O-4 or O-5. For YG2000 from West Point (my year group), those select few that have been BZ to O-4 or O-5 have generally not been the highest ranked undergraduates (they haven’t been the lowest ranked, either). And I use ETSU for a reason: one of my peers is an ETSU graduate, and had a horrible undergraduate GPA, and is among the most talented and most respected field grade officers I know. And the only part that his undergraduate degree played in his development was providing a substantial base for future development.
(10)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
MAJ (Join to see), I guess I am the exception, I spent 6 years running an executive communications flight where all I did was interact with FGO and GO level Officers often on a one on one level at the Wing (Brigade), NAF (Division) and MAJCOM (Army) Levels and witnessed first hand what senior officers actually "do" on a daily basis. Its almost funny that the more senior they are they less they "physically" do, but god, the mental work they go through on a daily basis is a burden that most folks simply couldn't handle. I was fortunate enough to actually get to know many of these senior leaders on a personal level and still maintain contact with them as they truly are mentor and leaders.
The ability to take 2 weeks worth of 20 people's staff work and research, digest it, take ownership of it, make the call and be able to not only articulate the decisions, they whys and how and how that long term effects will be 20 year from now but also be able to testify in front of congress and defend the decision from a barrage of rapid fire questions and not only answer them with accurate facts, figures, and specific examples but do so in a manner that is cool calm and collected is the hallmark of the Educated Warrior Leader.
So, yes I do agree that beyond the O3 level when you truly begin to "Command" a QUALITY education and being a truly educated thinker is CRITICAL to being successful, not just for yourself but also for the people and organizations you lead.
Speaking to the bio you posted, like most senior FGO's and GO's at least one of his Masters is from a service school and the seminar appears to be service sponsored. I will posit the question, if we as a services have Graduate Schools for professional officer (and enlisted) growth. If the BS/BA was removed from the entrance requirements, it could be incorporated the PME schedule. The AF already issues Masters Degree option for Air Command and Staff College (Intermediate PME) and Air War College (Advanced PME). A Bachelor Degree Option could be added to the Squadron Officer School (Primary PME).
The ability to take 2 weeks worth of 20 people's staff work and research, digest it, take ownership of it, make the call and be able to not only articulate the decisions, they whys and how and how that long term effects will be 20 year from now but also be able to testify in front of congress and defend the decision from a barrage of rapid fire questions and not only answer them with accurate facts, figures, and specific examples but do so in a manner that is cool calm and collected is the hallmark of the Educated Warrior Leader.
So, yes I do agree that beyond the O3 level when you truly begin to "Command" a QUALITY education and being a truly educated thinker is CRITICAL to being successful, not just for yourself but also for the people and organizations you lead.
Speaking to the bio you posted, like most senior FGO's and GO's at least one of his Masters is from a service school and the seminar appears to be service sponsored. I will posit the question, if we as a services have Graduate Schools for professional officer (and enlisted) growth. If the BS/BA was removed from the entrance requirements, it could be incorporated the PME schedule. The AF already issues Masters Degree option for Air Command and Staff College (Intermediate PME) and Air War College (Advanced PME). A Bachelor Degree Option could be added to the Squadron Officer School (Primary PME).
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland Great points. On your thoughts about removing the bachelors degree as a pre-commissioning requirement and adding it to the PME schedule at the O-3 level , some pros and cons. The most glaring con would be that having the military being involved in directly awarding civilian degrees at the bachelor level would not likely address the quality issue discussed by the author of the original article. You mention the War Colleges and Command and Staff Schools as examples of entities that issue graduate degrees. As so many questions exist regarding the quality and values of such degrees (see http://www.defensepolicy.org/george-reed/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-and-right-with-the-war-colleges for a great overview), one would expect the same sort of questions if the military started awarding bachelor’s degrees (outside of the Academies, which also attract significant questions about necessity and quality). Quality becomes the issue, and from what I understand, masters degrees from the War Colleges aren’t exactly considered quality degrees (because lots of O-5s and most O-6s go, because EVERYONE graduates, because the course is less than a year long, because the faculty isn’t assessed as first-rate, and etc). Service-sponsored degrees at civilian institutions are much different, and, from what I understand, of much higher quality (because the Service only pays for the degree, versus actually having any involvement in design or delivery of the degree).
What I could see happening, in a resource-deprived environment, is DoD changing the bachelor’s degree requirement from a commissioning requirement to a promotion pre-requisite to O-4 and, say, E-7, or perhaps a retention requirement for officers for, say, service after 6 years or for NCOs for, say, service after 12 years (I’m just making up numbers here). We’ve already started to do this with masters degree pre-requisite requirements for a number of specialty career fields (where previously one would be selected for a career field and then sent to graduate school, now selection is open primarily only to those who have already somehow managed to complete a masters degree). This would likely result in considerable cost savings for DoD, as DoD spends a lot of money educating new officers, via ROTC and the Academies, a large percentage of which simply separate from Service after their initial commitment. Maybe along with this DoD would keep the Academies and some ROTC programs running, perhaps at a lower production rate, just to ensure a diversity of population. In this scenario, competition for limited available commissions might see a small percentage (say, 20-30%) of stellar individuals without bachelor’s degrees selected for commissioning (we’d probably still want them to go through OCS or an OCS-like institution and all the basic officer training that currently exists as initial entry training for officers), with the knowledge that they’d earn a bachelor’s degree on their own (maybe with some limited tuition assistance) prior to advancement to O-4 or after a few years in Service.
On the other hand, such a system might simply make having a bachelor’s degree an informal requirement for commissioning, versus the formalized requirement that currently exists. The example here would be Intermediate Level Education (ILE) in the Army. No regulation or policy exists anywhere that establishes ILE completion as a pre-requisite for promotion to O-5 in the Army; however, as exemplified by recent promotion boards, ILE completion is an informal promotion requirement: no ILE, no promotion. As a job as an officer in the US military is a good, well-paying, respected job, competition for commissioning would be quite high (and is already quite high, I should add----the Academies select, they say, about 10% of applicants; competition for ROTC slots is only slightly less, with about 30% of applicants selected; and competition for OCS varies, year by year and Service-by-Service, with a range of somewhere between 10% and 60% selected, with 30% seeming to be the most recent rate for the Army). Thus, DoD could solve this entire discussion by establishing a policy in which a bachelor’s degree isn’t formally required, until a certain point. By doing so, it could simultaneously shift funding of the basic civilian education of a large part of its officer corps to the individual AND essentially ensure that almost all of the individuals to whom a commission was offered ALREADY had a bachelor’s degree (because, in an open market, having a bachelor’s degree would likely make an applicant more competitive).
What I could see happening, in a resource-deprived environment, is DoD changing the bachelor’s degree requirement from a commissioning requirement to a promotion pre-requisite to O-4 and, say, E-7, or perhaps a retention requirement for officers for, say, service after 6 years or for NCOs for, say, service after 12 years (I’m just making up numbers here). We’ve already started to do this with masters degree pre-requisite requirements for a number of specialty career fields (where previously one would be selected for a career field and then sent to graduate school, now selection is open primarily only to those who have already somehow managed to complete a masters degree). This would likely result in considerable cost savings for DoD, as DoD spends a lot of money educating new officers, via ROTC and the Academies, a large percentage of which simply separate from Service after their initial commitment. Maybe along with this DoD would keep the Academies and some ROTC programs running, perhaps at a lower production rate, just to ensure a diversity of population. In this scenario, competition for limited available commissions might see a small percentage (say, 20-30%) of stellar individuals without bachelor’s degrees selected for commissioning (we’d probably still want them to go through OCS or an OCS-like institution and all the basic officer training that currently exists as initial entry training for officers), with the knowledge that they’d earn a bachelor’s degree on their own (maybe with some limited tuition assistance) prior to advancement to O-4 or after a few years in Service.
On the other hand, such a system might simply make having a bachelor’s degree an informal requirement for commissioning, versus the formalized requirement that currently exists. The example here would be Intermediate Level Education (ILE) in the Army. No regulation or policy exists anywhere that establishes ILE completion as a pre-requisite for promotion to O-5 in the Army; however, as exemplified by recent promotion boards, ILE completion is an informal promotion requirement: no ILE, no promotion. As a job as an officer in the US military is a good, well-paying, respected job, competition for commissioning would be quite high (and is already quite high, I should add----the Academies select, they say, about 10% of applicants; competition for ROTC slots is only slightly less, with about 30% of applicants selected; and competition for OCS varies, year by year and Service-by-Service, with a range of somewhere between 10% and 60% selected, with 30% seeming to be the most recent rate for the Army). Thus, DoD could solve this entire discussion by establishing a policy in which a bachelor’s degree isn’t formally required, until a certain point. By doing so, it could simultaneously shift funding of the basic civilian education of a large part of its officer corps to the individual AND essentially ensure that almost all of the individuals to whom a commission was offered ALREADY had a bachelor’s degree (because, in an open market, having a bachelor’s degree would likely make an applicant more competitive).
(2)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
MAJ (Join to see), I fully agree with your assessment of the "stigma" of the "Army/Air Force/Nany/Marince" degree. It is actually a pretty common complaint I have heard of graduates of the Service Academies, NPS, AFIT, etc where they actually have to justify that it is a "real" degree as well my enlisted peers with the Community College of the Air Force which is a Regionally Accredited Associate of Applied Science degree explaining that it is a "real" degree as well.
I would argue that we would have to give none BA/BS holding officers a fairly substantial access to TA (with service commit requirement) to be able to complete all of their Gen Ed, electives and Liberal Arts credits prior to attending Primary PME (which would equate to their core major courses). Now they could do most of these via the free (and thus no commitment). That would also at least assist dispelling issues with the content of the the education since everything outside of the major (military science?) would be done through civilian institutions.
With regards to informal requirements, degrees have had a been creeping their way is informal requirements for years. The AF has had an informal requirement for a Masters for promotion to Major but the formal requirement is Col. On the enlisted slide, we have had an informal requirement for an Associates Degree for promotion to E8/E9 and starting this year it is a formal requirement. No degree and you don't even compete. To be actually competitive, a BA/BS or Masters is what you should have.
I would argue that we would have to give none BA/BS holding officers a fairly substantial access to TA (with service commit requirement) to be able to complete all of their Gen Ed, electives and Liberal Arts credits prior to attending Primary PME (which would equate to their core major courses). Now they could do most of these via the free (and thus no commitment). That would also at least assist dispelling issues with the content of the the education since everything outside of the major (military science?) would be done through civilian institutions.
With regards to informal requirements, degrees have had a been creeping their way is informal requirements for years. The AF has had an informal requirement for a Masters for promotion to Major but the formal requirement is Col. On the enlisted slide, we have had an informal requirement for an Associates Degree for promotion to E8/E9 and starting this year it is a formal requirement. No degree and you don't even compete. To be actually competitive, a BA/BS or Masters is what you should have.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Yea this is a bunch of bull-loney... As matter of fact, we should require anyone moving above SSG to attain a bachelor degree and anyone above e7 to earn a graduate level education, from grunt to MI...
There is a difference between a solid, formal education and lack of formal education (I know it hurts to hear but... That's why our country is struggling... We cannot swallow that which is sour anymore) and all leaders should have an advanced level of training in critical thinking, analysis and an ability to show that they can go through the arduous, long term process of earning a degree.
If it was easy we wouldn't have so many people opposed to it. Just saying...
There is a difference between a solid, formal education and lack of formal education (I know it hurts to hear but... That's why our country is struggling... We cannot swallow that which is sour anymore) and all leaders should have an advanced level of training in critical thinking, analysis and an ability to show that they can go through the arduous, long term process of earning a degree.
If it was easy we wouldn't have so many people opposed to it. Just saying...
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
Of course they do. Hanging in and getting a degree indicates discipline. It took me 7 years to get my BA but I stuck to it and ended up with my BA and eventually 2 grad degrees. Study inculcates intellectual rigor in one's thinking.
(7)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Agreed sir,
Having a degree shows the ability to goal set and never lose sight of your goal despite the up and downs of life.
Having a degree shows the ability to goal set and never lose sight of your goal despite the up and downs of life.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google