Should the military push harder for its officers to pursue PhDs?

I have two distinct feelings on this. Let me begin by saying tgat this is an excellent question and, for full disclosure purposes, I have a Ph. D. in Mathematics Education.

First, in order to function at the highest levels of leadership (as opposed to management, and there is a huge difference between the two) you truly need a generalist who is able to use a holistic approach. This is why top leaders are referred to as General Officers. These officers have just enough experience in their primary branch (i.e. Infantry, Signal, etc) to have a certain level of expertise as well as just enough broadnening assignments to give them the "big picture" in in terms of the Army (and our sister services). Because of this, an officer clearly is not required to have a Ph.D. As he/she gets the requisite training fir success at one of the Senior Service Colleges.

Second, a Ph.D. Requires a substantial investment of time and resources in order to successfully complete. While we do send Active Component officers to Ph.D. programs for a period of three years (full-time) at Army expense one must ask, is there a true benefit in doing this. The obvious negative is that we take this officer completely out of the inventory fir three years. During this time, one may argue that they cease to be relevant and ready because their branch skills will deteriorate as well as become obsolete. The clear positive is that at the end of the program (if successful, and a Ph.D. is not a gimme degree) the Army gets an officer who has finely honed critical thinking skills and an ability to execute independent quality research at a publishing level (regardless of the field of study). One could argue that both of those skills are needed at the GO level, thus the time spent earning the credential is time well spent.

If you take the time and look at some GO bio's you will notice that there are a fair number who possess a doctorate if some sort (Ph.D, DBA, Ed.D., M.D., J.D., etc.).

If your goal is to achieve GO level then I would argue that earning your doctorate will not hurt your chances. If you ask me if all officers should be pressed to pursue a Ph.D. I would say no. The degree is not a "necessary" part of officer career development.

Just saw the typos in my previous post

COL (Join to see) - Hah! I miss stuff all the time! Typing on an iPhone just isn't an inborn trait! Thanks for your comment. The jack of all trades is critical to begin a career. I can't see it mandated for all officers.

Me either although for those who wish to push forward, it is an adventure!

COL Jean (John) F. B. - Not an elitist, but reading someone say that two masters degrees made not one difference in their effectiveness as an officer does open the question as to the value and quality of said masters degrees. Two masters degrees represents at least two years of learning; if one completed two years of learning at the graduate level and didn't increase their effectiveness.......that's sad. Also, I do think quality is important. - degree from an elite university is of higher qualitative and quantitative value than a similar degree from a lower tier university----oodles of research demonstrate this. This isn't to denigrate the value of any certain degree, as all education is important and of value, but I do believe that the quality of an education is important.

MAJ (Join to see) - I believe the quality of education is important, however, it is more important in some fields than others. In the military, we certainly want educated leaders (and soldiers), but what is more important is their professional competence, leadership ability, and experience. I have known a great many military "scholars" who put formal higher education (Masters and PhD) at an apparent higher priority than military professionalism, leadership, experience, and "military education". From my experience, I typically found them to be much less effective than those officers who put their "military education" and experience first. Balance is important... There is certainly a place for "military scholars" with PhDs, etc. But there is certainly a place for those without and, in my opinion, those without are generally better officers/leaders.

I don't question some schools and some degrees are "better" than others. I just don't see it being very important in the real world of the military.

I don't mean to offend you, but my experience has also been that non-USMA graduate officers are typically "better" officers than USMA grads, especially at the Captain and above ranks. I realize that is a broad generalization, but it, nonetheless, has been my experience. Many USMA grads come into the Army with the same entitled, "better than thou" attitudes that you display by your elitist comments. While I have known a great many outstanding USMA grads, as a general rule, I have found non-USMA grads to be better officers in the long-run. I guess the same could hold true for "elite" schools and degrees.

COL Jean (John) F. B. - Perhaps our differences in perspectives is generational. For the current operating environment--and the one of the last 15 years or so--the import of advanced schooling has increased substantially. In an era of persistent conflict, where we're asking division and brigade commanders to function well beyond a simple military framework, where battalion commanders are responsible for combat operations and governance in their area of responsibility, where company commanders and platoon leaders are involved in firefights one minute and civil affairs / democracy building the next, the critical thinking and analytical skills reinforced by advanced schooling can be incredibly important. In today's environment, senior leaders need to be highly educated, if only to compete intellectually with their peers in the Interagency. Quality is important, especially in the JIIM.

As far as your perspectives on commissioning sources, I can't help but observe that your opinions of USMA grads is quite common for non-USMA grads. Envy, perhaps. :). From my perspective, after just 16 years of service, I haven't found one commissioning source to produce better or worse officers. In fact, I think that the diversity of commissioning sources is a strength----and USMA grads add to this.

MAJ (Join to see) - I do not disagree that education is important, and that it is more important now than it has been in the past, however, I do not agree that it is any more important today than it has been in the past when it comes to leading soldiers, which is, after all, the primary reason we have officers. There will always be certain positions where education is critical to the duty position one finds himself/herself in, but I will stand by my assertion that it is less important where the rubber meets the road, at the troop level.

I totally agree that the various sources of commissioning is a strength for the Army/military. As far as your experience is concerned, it may be true that you have not seen a difference in commissioning sources. However, that is not the case with my experience as a company (X2), battalion, and brigade commander, as well as a staff officer at battalion, brigade, division, corps, theater, and joint level.

As far as my being envious of West Point graduates -- nothing could be farther from the truth. In actuality, I had the great opportunity to go to West Point after high school. I received a Principal Appointment from my Congressman as well as a Presidential Appointment as a result of my father's career military status. In addition, I received an appointment to the US Naval Academy.

As long as I can remember, I always wanted to go to West Point. My favorite book as a kid was "West Point Plebe", which I read many times (and probably still have to this day) and my favorite Saturday morning TV show was "The West Point Story". I visited West Point several times and I had memorized the Plebe Knowledge long before I entered high school. There was no doubt in my mind that is what I was going to do and I set my course to make it happen. I made very good grades, participated in a great many extracurricular activities, held many leadership positions, was a stand-out in sports, and volunteered in my community. However, when my appointment came through, I opted for sports and girls over West Point, which greatly upset my dad. I would be less than honest if I said I have not, at times, regretted that decision, however, over the years, I have come to realize that was probably the right decision. I still received a Regular Army commission when I graduated from college and achieved everything I wanted to achieve in the military. I really don't know if I would have stayed in after graduating from West Point, based on my experience with friends and officers who have worked for me who graduated from West Point. It just seemed that West Point gave many of them a bad attitude and that they could not wait to get out. Regardless, that is water over the dam. I made my choice and I do not regret it. Envious?? Nope.. not at all.

My son also received an appointment to West Point (and the Air Force Academy), primarily because he was an "elite" football recruit. Due to an injury late in his senor year in high school, the athletic staff at West Point arranged for him to spend a year at West Point Prep at Ft Monmouth, so they would not lose a year of eligibility. He finished that year and was set to enter West Point but, like me, let girls and sports interfere with that decision. (And, yes, I thought he was a dumb-ass for making that decision, but it was his to make).

You and I have a lot more in common than you think. I was also a FAO for awhile (not that I wanted to be) because I spoke fluent French, lived in France for 14 years, etc.,etc. I was selected for the two-year French Command and Staff College, attended French Commando School and was offered a position as the US liaison officer to that school, and attended French paratrooper training. I served as an interpreter more times than I can remember when I served in a NATO assignment in Italy, which also contained a French Liaison Mission in its organization. However, I opted out of FAO (and had to pull some strings to get out) when they wanted me to attend a two-year French School, followed by a three-year utilization tour. As I was in an ROTC instructor position at the time, that would have taken me out of my branch for 8 years. Not the right thing to do at the time, as I wanted to command a Military Police battalion and brigade., which would have been impossible after so much time out of the branch and not being "branch qualified" as a major.

My point is that we all make career decisions, based on our own reasons, wants and desires. To others it may not make sense, but it is what it is.

Part of that is also pushing towards BAs and MAs instead of BSs and MSs, the latter of which should be a mandated pre-requisite to a PhD

I am intrigued by your statement. Why should a BS and an MS be a mandated requurement fir a Ph.D.? I have both but see no real utility, especially in some fields, over a BA or MA. In principle, you obtain a limited amount of research knowledge with either Masters degree and then top it off at the Ph.D. Level. if your statement holds true, then someone with an MBA would not be able to pursue a Ph. D. in business, nor would someone with an M.Ed. be able to pursue a Ph.D. in education. There are many more examples I could cite.

Having obtained a doctoral degree in business (Doctor of Business Administration, same as a PhD) I see no reason for officers to have a doctoral degree except in very rare cases such as the sciences or engineering. As Maj Martinez said it would not make a person a better leader. I will add most likely. A degree in Organizational Behavior might make a bad leader better, but not help a good leader. As a department chair at a university, I always told new, young faculty to emulate their favorite professor when in the classroom. An advantage of a doctoral degree would be that you learn to ask questions about why or what is best. Why is it that the unit does not follow orders? or What is the best way to develop squad leaders into leaders and not "commanders"? As an undergraduate I knew a professor that said: "A bachelor's degree teaches you where to find information. A master's degree shows you can find it. A doctoral degree shows you can write about it." If an officer is to be an analyst and write reports then maybe it would be helpful.