3
3
0
This is going to be partially biased as I am a Reservist but the structure of ECCC seems unusual and irritates me to no end, here is my thought.
The Army Engineer capabilities are now something like 80% USAR and ARNG.
The Reserve Component ECCC is split into four phases, Phase one and three are distance learning, two and four are resident (2 weeks each) there are four classes per year (50 students ea.) USAR gets 33% of the seats and ARNG gets 67% so that means every year the USAR can educationally qualify 66 CPT's and the ARNG can qualify 133 - these classes are notoriously overbooked and cost the Army say $5000 per student after flights, training and incidentals.
Active Duty ECCC is a nearly 6 month course (with a PCS move) (and a masters degree) there are 8 courses per year, now I'm not sure on class size but let's assume there are 25 in each class, that means Active component can educationally qualify 200 CPT's at maybe $75,000 each (salary +resources + PCS move), possibly more once you add MS&T education to the mix
So for a select group that represents only 20% of the engineer capability are all the concessions made? and why do they need 6 months to complete the course? The reserve and guard deploy and are successful at our missions as well if not greater than A/C yet we are not afforded the same opportunities? Not to mention the outdated POI from 1995 that does effectively nothing to teach TPU engineer officers.
I work as a professional engineer on the civilian side and I will take the skillset of a reserve component officer with an engineering degree 9 times out of 10 then I would an overpaid A/C counterpart.
with the greater Army downsizing this is going to have to be reconsidered sooner than later or the RC's are going to run out of Majors which will hurt the regiment as a whole.
and as a caveat to this discussion.. why did the Engineer Regiment come out with ASI's if we aren't going to use them? I haven't seen any coded positions.
The Army Engineer capabilities are now something like 80% USAR and ARNG.
The Reserve Component ECCC is split into four phases, Phase one and three are distance learning, two and four are resident (2 weeks each) there are four classes per year (50 students ea.) USAR gets 33% of the seats and ARNG gets 67% so that means every year the USAR can educationally qualify 66 CPT's and the ARNG can qualify 133 - these classes are notoriously overbooked and cost the Army say $5000 per student after flights, training and incidentals.
Active Duty ECCC is a nearly 6 month course (with a PCS move) (and a masters degree) there are 8 courses per year, now I'm not sure on class size but let's assume there are 25 in each class, that means Active component can educationally qualify 200 CPT's at maybe $75,000 each (salary +resources + PCS move), possibly more once you add MS&T education to the mix
So for a select group that represents only 20% of the engineer capability are all the concessions made? and why do they need 6 months to complete the course? The reserve and guard deploy and are successful at our missions as well if not greater than A/C yet we are not afforded the same opportunities? Not to mention the outdated POI from 1995 that does effectively nothing to teach TPU engineer officers.
I work as a professional engineer on the civilian side and I will take the skillset of a reserve component officer with an engineering degree 9 times out of 10 then I would an overpaid A/C counterpart.
with the greater Army downsizing this is going to have to be reconsidered sooner than later or the RC's are going to run out of Majors which will hurt the regiment as a whole.
and as a caveat to this discussion.. why did the Engineer Regiment come out with ASI's if we aren't going to use them? I haven't seen any coded positions.
Posted in these groups: 
12A: Engineer Officer
12A: Engineer Officer
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
2
2
0
As a whole the Engineer branch has done a miserable job identifying our tasks to the main Army. Even when deployed the vast majority of real engineering is done via USACE or civilian contractors. I remember when I first chose engineering and heard all this talk about how the branch was going away as Armor and Infantry were going to have the mobility countermobility mission. Then the War started and for some reason Enemy Obstacle became a Unexploded Ordinance or Booby Traps (Vietnam) became IED and the mission was given to EOD, few years later and the Army realized how stupid that decision was and EOCA was born. Thankfully they added a Engineer Battalion to the BCT but Combat Arms still has no idea how to use us.
The root of the problem is the garrison mindset, I worked at DPW for a time trying to set up troop projects and the Army has a long policy/regulation mix that basically shows how to appear like you are not taking projects away from the civilian economy. Compare that to WWII or before where the Army actually did infrastructure missions, or look at Brazil who's Army Engineers continues to do massive projects. Simply put without any ability for the Army to task typical engineer units there isn't a need to train degreed engineered officers. the only exception is USACE where you still won't do much work you'll just monitor contractor performance.
My simple solution bring back troop projects, there are plenty of M&O funded projects across the active solution, there are plenty of state projects that could be handed down to the NG, which pretty much leaves the reserves stuck holding the pickle. (could be used for close federal projects or legislation could be approved to use TPU reservists for State funded projects not to exceed 2 weeks duration. (BLM land road repair seems to be a very easy and beneficial project for horizontal units)
And we wouldn't need to pay incredulous amounts of cash to build roads in theater. (oh wait that would stop the donations to election campaigns maybe that is the real problem...)
The root of the problem is the garrison mindset, I worked at DPW for a time trying to set up troop projects and the Army has a long policy/regulation mix that basically shows how to appear like you are not taking projects away from the civilian economy. Compare that to WWII or before where the Army actually did infrastructure missions, or look at Brazil who's Army Engineers continues to do massive projects. Simply put without any ability for the Army to task typical engineer units there isn't a need to train degreed engineered officers. the only exception is USACE where you still won't do much work you'll just monitor contractor performance.
My simple solution bring back troop projects, there are plenty of M&O funded projects across the active solution, there are plenty of state projects that could be handed down to the NG, which pretty much leaves the reserves stuck holding the pickle. (could be used for close federal projects or legislation could be approved to use TPU reservists for State funded projects not to exceed 2 weeks duration. (BLM land road repair seems to be a very easy and beneficial project for horizontal units)
And we wouldn't need to pay incredulous amounts of cash to build roads in theater. (oh wait that would stop the donations to election campaigns maybe that is the real problem...)
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
The problem is that makes too much sense. Just goes to show how the army is now a welfare state, careerists will go to extreme lengths to self justify their positions to secure their pensions and we are more concerned with providing civilians jobs vs protecting the skills of our craft, that's why I say active component is a bunch of garbage, they just happen to have all the money But that doesn't make them anyore capable at being effective engineers (and I mean bona fide ) the army uses the term engineer very loosely.
This is why the branch loses talent, bottom line.
This is why the branch loses talent, bottom line.
(1)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
CPT Glover,
I disagree with a few of your comments.
- "The Engineer Branch has done a miserable job identifying our tasks to the main Army". Our tasks are combat engineering, general engineering and geospatial engineering. The names have changed a bit in my 23 years but the basic jist has remain unchanged.
- "When I first chose engineering and heard branch was going away". I'd be interested in hearing who you heard this from and when. Similar conversations/rumors abound when it comes to the Marine Corps, Service Academies, and concepts. Bad ideas seem to recycle at least every 20 years. Sometimes with the same names and sometimes with changed names.
- "The vast majority of real engineering is done via USACE or civilian contractors". So in your view, combat engineering and geospatial engineering are not "real" engineering? I disagree with that view. I agree that USACE and civilian contractors provide a majority of the general engineering capability. My question for you is this: do you know the percentage contributions of the three types (combat, general, geospatial) by various organizations since World War II and has this percentage changed over time?
- "Combat Arms still has no idea how to use us". I agree. It is our job as engineers to train and advise the maneuver commanders. If the combat arms has no idea then is that their fault or our fault as engineers?
- Troop construction projects. I agree that we as a Regiment and an Army need to bring this back. We had robust programs in the 1980s and 1990s but this atrophied in the 2000s due to GWOT and optempo. I think you may have a limited historical perspective on what we used to do, what we are currently doing, why it has changed, and what we need to do in the future.
I disagree with a few of your comments.
- "The Engineer Branch has done a miserable job identifying our tasks to the main Army". Our tasks are combat engineering, general engineering and geospatial engineering. The names have changed a bit in my 23 years but the basic jist has remain unchanged.
- "When I first chose engineering and heard branch was going away". I'd be interested in hearing who you heard this from and when. Similar conversations/rumors abound when it comes to the Marine Corps, Service Academies, and concepts. Bad ideas seem to recycle at least every 20 years. Sometimes with the same names and sometimes with changed names.
- "The vast majority of real engineering is done via USACE or civilian contractors". So in your view, combat engineering and geospatial engineering are not "real" engineering? I disagree with that view. I agree that USACE and civilian contractors provide a majority of the general engineering capability. My question for you is this: do you know the percentage contributions of the three types (combat, general, geospatial) by various organizations since World War II and has this percentage changed over time?
- "Combat Arms still has no idea how to use us". I agree. It is our job as engineers to train and advise the maneuver commanders. If the combat arms has no idea then is that their fault or our fault as engineers?
- Troop construction projects. I agree that we as a Regiment and an Army need to bring this back. We had robust programs in the 1980s and 1990s but this atrophied in the 2000s due to GWOT and optempo. I think you may have a limited historical perspective on what we used to do, what we are currently doing, why it has changed, and what we need to do in the future.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Comments 1 and 4 are about the same thing and yet it is our fault they don't know how to use us. They may know the terms but are not familiar with organic capabilities. Ask the vast majority of CPT's LT's who served with a HBCT in the sole-sapper company, all the training was infantry, thankfully the Engineer Battalion should have fixed that problem.
As far as the engineer corps going away it was back in 2003ish from most of the Armor and Infantry Majors as tanks were supposed to self entrench. Thankfully the IED destroyed any argument recommending reduction of the Engineer Corps. I can't tell you how many times I was blasted by my FOB Mayor for not using contractor's to spread rocks in a horizontal engineering company's motorpool.
By what I mean as real engineering is the challenging or difficult engineering where you use math not just look up the table factor with some quick multiplication. (not the type of engineering accountants and business majors do) So no Combat Engineering is not "real" engineering nor was it ever intended to be so, combat engineering is a leadership role not so much a technical role as is A&E, project controls, and quality assurance. Most of the Engineer Corps has never used simple programs like Microsoft Project let alone any substantial tools.
In terms of OPTEMPO for the AC units I agree, for the reserve units that only mobilized once or twice, yet somehow we were no longer permitted to train collectively as ITRS reports became so paramount that BDE Commanders were cancelling company field training due to pre-basic training Soldiers not having their influenza shots (actually happened, but this is more of a reserve problem than engineer).
I think the ASI's are a great step forward but would also love to see General Contractor Certifications for E~6-7's+. Our country has a very robust certification standard for "general engineering" that we should use no reason SLC should not provide a civilian standard certification.
As far as the engineer corps going away it was back in 2003ish from most of the Armor and Infantry Majors as tanks were supposed to self entrench. Thankfully the IED destroyed any argument recommending reduction of the Engineer Corps. I can't tell you how many times I was blasted by my FOB Mayor for not using contractor's to spread rocks in a horizontal engineering company's motorpool.
By what I mean as real engineering is the challenging or difficult engineering where you use math not just look up the table factor with some quick multiplication. (not the type of engineering accountants and business majors do) So no Combat Engineering is not "real" engineering nor was it ever intended to be so, combat engineering is a leadership role not so much a technical role as is A&E, project controls, and quality assurance. Most of the Engineer Corps has never used simple programs like Microsoft Project let alone any substantial tools.
In terms of OPTEMPO for the AC units I agree, for the reserve units that only mobilized once or twice, yet somehow we were no longer permitted to train collectively as ITRS reports became so paramount that BDE Commanders were cancelling company field training due to pre-basic training Soldiers not having their influenza shots (actually happened, but this is more of a reserve problem than engineer).
I think the ASI's are a great step forward but would also love to see General Contractor Certifications for E~6-7's+. Our country has a very robust certification standard for "general engineering" that we should use no reason SLC should not provide a civilian standard certification.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I just want all to know who continue to read this. The initial post has made its way into the curriculum of ECCC. I’m fact we referenced it for project management. It was nice to see within the course. Unfortunately no one took it seriously and no one like my comment of a branch split for officers either combat or general engineer (degree and Army background dependent).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT Johansson,
- You are mostly correct in the information you post above in terms of Engineer Regiment component mix (19% AC, 31% Reserve, 50% NG) and ECCC-AC and ECCC-RC differences (6 months vs 8 weeks).
- Some points where you are not correct:
1. Officer Additional Skill Identifiers. Includes S4 (Sapper), W1 (Facilities Planner), W2 (Geospatial Engineer), W3 Professional Engineer), W4 (Degreed Engineer), W5 (PMP), W6 (Project Engineer) and W7 (Environmental Engineer). These ASIs are coded into MTOE positions but there are problems reporting and tracking who has what ASI that the Regiment is working through.
2. The numbers of attendees for each course is worked through a process called SMDR (Structure Management Decision Review). Simply stated, FORSCOM, USARC and NGB report the numbers of students that they expect they will need. TRADOC takes this data and figures out the instructors, facilities, and resources they will need to train these numbers. This is done 3 years out. The Engineer issue here is that there is a logic disconnect in the numbers being reported. By this I mean if 400 EN LTs are trained in FY15 then we should expect 400 - attrition CPTs (360 or so) to be trained in FY19. Right now these numbers are about 50% of each other (400/200).
3. I would need to look up the SMDR data to get exact numbers by course and by FY to compare with your numbers below. Also, I would need to look up individuals costs. You may be right in above or not. Don't know.
- Some comments:
- There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between ECCC-RC and ECCC-AC. USAES is working to close the quality gap by having all ECCC under the control of one person (MAJ Scott Jamieson). Closing the quantity gap is more than an Engineer issue (applies to all branches) and requires TRADOC to change.
- The quantitive differences are not the result of "concessions" to the AC. They are the result of Title 10 vs Title 32 authorities and funding differences. Your primary employer (your civilian employer) signed up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Changes to this base agreement takes more than just one branch.
- USAES is working masters degree options to provide like opportunity to the RC as is provided to the AC. One way is a distance learning option with University of Louisville for an Engineering Management Master's. Takes two years or so. U of L will provide credit consideration for ECCC like MU S&T provides (6 credits for ECCC attendance).
- Hope this helps to answer, clarify, and/or confirm the information in your original post.
- You are mostly correct in the information you post above in terms of Engineer Regiment component mix (19% AC, 31% Reserve, 50% NG) and ECCC-AC and ECCC-RC differences (6 months vs 8 weeks).
- Some points where you are not correct:
1. Officer Additional Skill Identifiers. Includes S4 (Sapper), W1 (Facilities Planner), W2 (Geospatial Engineer), W3 Professional Engineer), W4 (Degreed Engineer), W5 (PMP), W6 (Project Engineer) and W7 (Environmental Engineer). These ASIs are coded into MTOE positions but there are problems reporting and tracking who has what ASI that the Regiment is working through.
2. The numbers of attendees for each course is worked through a process called SMDR (Structure Management Decision Review). Simply stated, FORSCOM, USARC and NGB report the numbers of students that they expect they will need. TRADOC takes this data and figures out the instructors, facilities, and resources they will need to train these numbers. This is done 3 years out. The Engineer issue here is that there is a logic disconnect in the numbers being reported. By this I mean if 400 EN LTs are trained in FY15 then we should expect 400 - attrition CPTs (360 or so) to be trained in FY19. Right now these numbers are about 50% of each other (400/200).
3. I would need to look up the SMDR data to get exact numbers by course and by FY to compare with your numbers below. Also, I would need to look up individuals costs. You may be right in above or not. Don't know.
- Some comments:
- There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between ECCC-RC and ECCC-AC. USAES is working to close the quality gap by having all ECCC under the control of one person (MAJ Scott Jamieson). Closing the quantity gap is more than an Engineer issue (applies to all branches) and requires TRADOC to change.
- The quantitive differences are not the result of "concessions" to the AC. They are the result of Title 10 vs Title 32 authorities and funding differences. Your primary employer (your civilian employer) signed up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Changes to this base agreement takes more than just one branch.
- USAES is working masters degree options to provide like opportunity to the RC as is provided to the AC. One way is a distance learning option with University of Louisville for an Engineering Management Master's. Takes two years or so. U of L will provide credit consideration for ECCC like MU S&T provides (6 credits for ECCC attendance).
- Hope this helps to answer, clarify, and/or confirm the information in your original post.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir,
It certainly helps, I like to understand the process and rationale - but doesn't it also mean that the regiment has a serious problem on it's hands?
Interesting you should mention the one weekend/two weeks agreement, I've never seen an AT mission in the recent past that was 14, most are 21 or 28 days at this point, the Reserve is trying to be an operational force and is getting longer rotations (whether we or our employers like it or not) that trend will likely only continue to grow- and is a point of contention among the reserve community because we are the ones who have to explain that to our families and employers - greater utilization without a respective rise in benefits- both direct and in-kind, more deployments, more interruptions to our personal lives etc etc.
I want to re-phrase my original question- why can't AC do the EXACT course as RC?
ie. work a regular job and do the correspondence courses in their spare time, go TDY for 2 weeks and then go back to their regular A/C job? why do they absolutely need 6 months to complete a course which in my mind seems of marginal value to the taxpayer?
It would streamline the POI and ensure that the time spent in the course is used wisely, and even more importantly get A/C and R/C officers better acquainted and network and see how the R/C can support the A/C mission.
This segregation to me seems like an attempt for A/C to justify their time and just fill a "hole" in their career.
It certainly helps, I like to understand the process and rationale - but doesn't it also mean that the regiment has a serious problem on it's hands?
Interesting you should mention the one weekend/two weeks agreement, I've never seen an AT mission in the recent past that was 14, most are 21 or 28 days at this point, the Reserve is trying to be an operational force and is getting longer rotations (whether we or our employers like it or not) that trend will likely only continue to grow- and is a point of contention among the reserve community because we are the ones who have to explain that to our families and employers - greater utilization without a respective rise in benefits- both direct and in-kind, more deployments, more interruptions to our personal lives etc etc.
I want to re-phrase my original question- why can't AC do the EXACT course as RC?
ie. work a regular job and do the correspondence courses in their spare time, go TDY for 2 weeks and then go back to their regular A/C job? why do they absolutely need 6 months to complete a course which in my mind seems of marginal value to the taxpayer?
It would streamline the POI and ensure that the time spent in the course is used wisely, and even more importantly get A/C and R/C officers better acquainted and network and see how the R/C can support the A/C mission.
This segregation to me seems like an attempt for A/C to justify their time and just fill a "hole" in their career.
(1)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
CPT Johansson,
- From a strategic perspective, I think we get the best product / course we can with the resources we have. The answer to your rephrase of your question (why can't AC do the exact course as RC) is that we can but that we should not. We should bring all courses up to the same qualitative and quantitative standards rather than reduce all courses to the least common denominator. The reasons we have different standards are several but a primary reason is resources. This is a different issue from requirements. Requirements goes to the Army Leader Development Strategy and how it is applied by MOS and rank. The product of this analysis is summarized in TRADOC Pamphlet 600-3 Chapter 13 for Engineers but the analysis and methodology to produce this analysis goes much deeper than what is in this document.
- The "one weekend a month and two weeks a year" is a general statement. The authorities change for units based upon how close they are to deployment. Closer to deployment means higher priority means more resources allocated against the requirement. This is a different issue for organizations (FORSCOM) than for individual courses (TRADOC).
- "Why need six months to complete a course which is of marginal value to the taxpayer". Interesting hypothesis. What facts and logic are you using to support and make this statement or is this just a personal opinion? If a personal opinion then I assume you are making this opinion based solely upon your personal experience? An opinion is fine but is generally limited and usually contains no analysis.
- I recommend you google, find, and read the ADRP 1 The Army Profession (JUN 13), the Army's Leader Development Strategy (5 JUN 13), TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 Army Operating Concept ( 7 OCT 14), and TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7 Human Dimension (11 JUN 08). Bottom line is that CSA says leader development is the US Army's asymmetric advantage over every other nation. The implied task is that we should strategically invest more in leader development. You are basically arguing that we should invest less in leader development. I disagree with your argument based upon the documents listed above, senior Army leader comments, and experience. I am interested in better understanding why you believe what you are writing.
- From a strategic perspective, I think we get the best product / course we can with the resources we have. The answer to your rephrase of your question (why can't AC do the exact course as RC) is that we can but that we should not. We should bring all courses up to the same qualitative and quantitative standards rather than reduce all courses to the least common denominator. The reasons we have different standards are several but a primary reason is resources. This is a different issue from requirements. Requirements goes to the Army Leader Development Strategy and how it is applied by MOS and rank. The product of this analysis is summarized in TRADOC Pamphlet 600-3 Chapter 13 for Engineers but the analysis and methodology to produce this analysis goes much deeper than what is in this document.
- The "one weekend a month and two weeks a year" is a general statement. The authorities change for units based upon how close they are to deployment. Closer to deployment means higher priority means more resources allocated against the requirement. This is a different issue for organizations (FORSCOM) than for individual courses (TRADOC).
- "Why need six months to complete a course which is of marginal value to the taxpayer". Interesting hypothesis. What facts and logic are you using to support and make this statement or is this just a personal opinion? If a personal opinion then I assume you are making this opinion based solely upon your personal experience? An opinion is fine but is generally limited and usually contains no analysis.
- I recommend you google, find, and read the ADRP 1 The Army Profession (JUN 13), the Army's Leader Development Strategy (5 JUN 13), TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 Army Operating Concept ( 7 OCT 14), and TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7 Human Dimension (11 JUN 08). Bottom line is that CSA says leader development is the US Army's asymmetric advantage over every other nation. The implied task is that we should strategically invest more in leader development. You are basically arguing that we should invest less in leader development. I disagree with your argument based upon the documents listed above, senior Army leader comments, and experience. I am interested in better understanding why you believe what you are writing.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I'm not neccesarliy saying we need to spend less, just align the components, if the same expectation for an EN MAJ in RC/AC/or ARNG exists for that leader while deployed then the OES system needs to be aligned for all components (same expectation same training) CCC is the only school I am aware of that such a deviation of curriculum and delivery exists. I get it, there are funding, resourcing, and strategic decisions far above my rank and comprehension that make it prohibitive to allocate additional seats or time to the course and my experience is only limitied to the Phase 1 DL so I can't speak comprehensivly. I just know I went to BOLC-B with AC/RC/ARNG and now that I am a captain my OES is different.
Please allow me to re-phrase my question.
AC/RC officers should not be seperated during OES, I think a good way to achieve this is to make the courses identical throughout 70-80% of the course and then as a final remainder cover component specific issues in a ECCC final phase specific to a branch. I understand there are issues with timing in the RC and a 5 month resident course may not be appropriate, however the current methods of delivery with outdated delivery via Distance learning is ineffective and irrelevant to the way the Engineer Branch functions currently. Teaching AC resident course provides them with the best practices and knowledge while the POI for the reserve components continues to be outdated. My proposal would be the work on alignment of the instruction by expanding the authorization for RC and consolidating the course to minimize the time spent BOG as a resident. I dont have an y excellent concepts for how this would be achieved but it might look something like a 80-hour updated DL for all components and then a 60 or 90 day resident phase for all components and then a 2 week resident or DL phase for component specific issues.
Since the RC is always being asked to support RC it is imperative that RC underants how AC functions and vice-versa, segregating the courses does not promote this croos-talk bettween components and best-practices.
Please allow me to re-phrase my question.
AC/RC officers should not be seperated during OES, I think a good way to achieve this is to make the courses identical throughout 70-80% of the course and then as a final remainder cover component specific issues in a ECCC final phase specific to a branch. I understand there are issues with timing in the RC and a 5 month resident course may not be appropriate, however the current methods of delivery with outdated delivery via Distance learning is ineffective and irrelevant to the way the Engineer Branch functions currently. Teaching AC resident course provides them with the best practices and knowledge while the POI for the reserve components continues to be outdated. My proposal would be the work on alignment of the instruction by expanding the authorization for RC and consolidating the course to minimize the time spent BOG as a resident. I dont have an y excellent concepts for how this would be achieved but it might look something like a 80-hour updated DL for all components and then a 60 or 90 day resident phase for all components and then a 2 week resident or DL phase for component specific issues.
Since the RC is always being asked to support RC it is imperative that RC underants how AC functions and vice-versa, segregating the courses does not promote this croos-talk bettween components and best-practices.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
CPT Johannson,
- You are effectively arguing for OASS (One Army School System) which is already in effect theoretically but, as you point out, not in reality. In theory, all 47 courses that the Engineer Regiment is a proponent for are OASS compliant but for one course that supports 12T (Surveyor).
- As you point out, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between ECCC-AC and ECCC-RC (or as you write "deviation of curriculum and delivery") but this is hardly the only course where this is true. This is just the only course that you have personally experienced where this is true. I am not saying this is the way it should be. I am just saying this is the way it currently is for a variety of reasons.
- Also, there is a difference between EBOLC and ECCC. EBOLC is IMT (Initial Military Training) which is why all LTs, regardless of component, attend this course. ECCC, meanwhile, is PME (Professional Military Education) like CGSC and War College are. All components do not attend the same PME. Again, this is not a statement of what is right or should be, just a statement of what currently is.
- Your above idea has merit but has FAS issues (feasible, acceptable, suitable) that would need to be worked through before it could be executable.
- You are effectively arguing for OASS (One Army School System) which is already in effect theoretically but, as you point out, not in reality. In theory, all 47 courses that the Engineer Regiment is a proponent for are OASS compliant but for one course that supports 12T (Surveyor).
- As you point out, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between ECCC-AC and ECCC-RC (or as you write "deviation of curriculum and delivery") but this is hardly the only course where this is true. This is just the only course that you have personally experienced where this is true. I am not saying this is the way it should be. I am just saying this is the way it currently is for a variety of reasons.
- Also, there is a difference between EBOLC and ECCC. EBOLC is IMT (Initial Military Training) which is why all LTs, regardless of component, attend this course. ECCC, meanwhile, is PME (Professional Military Education) like CGSC and War College are. All components do not attend the same PME. Again, this is not a statement of what is right or should be, just a statement of what currently is.
- Your above idea has merit but has FAS issues (feasible, acceptable, suitable) that would need to be worked through before it could be executable.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
As a side note, I heard that PLs and XOs are supposed to have W4s but it is not necessary for Commanders. (Correct me if I'm wrong LTC (Join to see) ) I'm a non-degree engineer and would love to pursue an engineering degree, but the Army definitely isn't going to pay me to go to school.
So out of curiosity sir, how long did you have to wait to attend Phases 2 and 4?
So out of curiosity sir, how long did you have to wait to attend Phases 2 and 4?
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Only for construction units (W4/W6 for PLs, W6 for XO and CDR). I would have to check to verify but heard PLs of Sapper units need S4 but XO and CDR do not. Not sure if that is accurate or not.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This problems affects such a small number of Reservists so perhaps it is not something that the people at the Engineer School would be willing to focus on? I know that this was an issue back in the 90's and will likely never be fixed. I totally agree with you on this. Perhaps there is someone you can send this suggestion to at the Engineer School?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
So now I am perplexed, a lot of great information exchange on here and I really appreciate that, I just don't understand why ANY of this ever reaches the rank and file of the RC? I know we have some bulletins etc. but those are usually filled with irrelevant information. I mean Honest to goodness "hey this will help your career" guidance because after hitting 2LT I was on my own trying to figure it out.. I know there's are new ARCD out there but I am sort of confused about what they are really capable of.
Now that I've got up on the soap box I've got to think about some of these things, I'll probably have to redact a few points that I made of poorly formed opinions and assumptions.
Appreciate everyone's thought's
And just so your all aware.. I am an Engineering Manager on the civilian side designing the new AMPV under BAE systems.. and yes there is a BIG difference between bona-fide engineering and Army Engineering.
Now that I've got up on the soap box I've got to think about some of these things, I'll probably have to redact a few points that I made of poorly formed opinions and assumptions.
Appreciate everyone's thought's
And just so your all aware.. I am an Engineering Manager on the civilian side designing the new AMPV under BAE systems.. and yes there is a BIG difference between bona-fide engineering and Army Engineering.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I went to the resident ECCC as an AGR. Due to the backlog we had 128 in our class. The usual size is 64. Of that AGR might get 1-3 per class with average of 8 slots a year. AGR means in this case Reserves, but in my class we had one NG AGR. I did not get the Masters as it was an option to do night school and then stay to graduate, if your follow-on command allowed, and you paid the costs for school. I already have a Master's and was not eligible for TA. I was using my Post 9-11 GI Bill for my PhD at the time and figured that was smarter than another Master's as I was already a year into this degree and well it is more money and you only have so much GI Bill. It was interesting how much we focused on AC and NG structure as we did not hit on any Reserve structure (as many know the NG is structured like the AC), but it may be because during war we fall into the AC structure when deployed. Four weeks of construction in both OBC and CCC does not cover much and it is mostly OJT for officers to learn how to do construction. However it makes some sense as most of those going will never see construction. Bridging is almost not touched in CCC and yet very valuable asset when deployed. Just a few observations I noticed.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
CPT Maurelli,
- Concur with your comments regarding construction and bridging in EBOLC and ECCC.
- One key to understanding, however, is the Army Leader Development Strategy published JUN 13 and the Army Leader Development Model contained within it. EBOLC and ECCC are NOT designed to teach everything that an Engineer needs to know at the LT and CPT levels. My personal estimate is that they provide about 25% which is enough to only let you know what questions to ask. 50% is provided by the operational domain and 25% by the self domain (my opinion only).
- You have two opportunities to provide feedback to the Schoolhouse on the quality of instruction that you receive. The first is as a student in the course that you personally attend. The second is as a commander by talking about the product of officer that you are receiving for subordinates. I encourage you to leverage both.
- Concur with your comments regarding construction and bridging in EBOLC and ECCC.
- One key to understanding, however, is the Army Leader Development Strategy published JUN 13 and the Army Leader Development Model contained within it. EBOLC and ECCC are NOT designed to teach everything that an Engineer needs to know at the LT and CPT levels. My personal estimate is that they provide about 25% which is enough to only let you know what questions to ask. 50% is provided by the operational domain and 25% by the self domain (my opinion only).
- You have two opportunities to provide feedback to the Schoolhouse on the quality of instruction that you receive. The first is as a student in the course that you personally attend. The second is as a commander by talking about the product of officer that you are receiving for subordinates. I encourage you to leverage both.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir, I actively particiapte in every survey the Army throws my way. Some days it makes it hard to read any emails besides surveys.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I know the Engineer Regiment has been trying for some time to get STEM/Degreed Engineers in the ranks, but have failed miserably. My opinion is that they continue to misplace talent (I'm also a degreed civil engineer and worked in the civilian sector as a Geotech, while i was TPU in a FEST team before joining the AGR program), and treat Engineer officers as generic middle management.
Many fields (Medical, Social Work, Law, Chaplain, etc) commission into higher starting pay grades and fast-track promotions, while degreed engineers, who go through extremely rigorous schooling, can be thrown in a MAC unit as fast as they can be put into a technical position. The aforementioned officers, on the other hand, will always practice their profession, and would never be made to work in a field completely unrelated to their degree. We, as professional engineers, don't get to do our job even if put into a position such as battalion engineer or company construction officer.
So, long story short, they can make up as many ASI's as they want and fill them with officers who have no clue what they're doing, but until they start using talent correctly and treat degreed Engineers as just that, the few who join are going to get tired of being marginalized and leave the force.
Many fields (Medical, Social Work, Law, Chaplain, etc) commission into higher starting pay grades and fast-track promotions, while degreed engineers, who go through extremely rigorous schooling, can be thrown in a MAC unit as fast as they can be put into a technical position. The aforementioned officers, on the other hand, will always practice their profession, and would never be made to work in a field completely unrelated to their degree. We, as professional engineers, don't get to do our job even if put into a position such as battalion engineer or company construction officer.
So, long story short, they can make up as many ASI's as they want and fill them with officers who have no clue what they're doing, but until they start using talent correctly and treat degreed Engineers as just that, the few who join are going to get tired of being marginalized and leave the force.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Seems the Air Force (Red Horse) and Navy (Seebees) do it right... I can't understand why the Army has such a tough time with it.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
1LT G Saint,
- I do not want to create the effect of shutting down the dialogue but your statement is factually incorrect and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of engineers within each of the services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines).
- The Marine Corps provides only combat engineering thus has no STEM requirement for its officers. The Air Force and Navy provide only general engineering capability therefore all of their officers are required to be STEM upon accession and obtain a PE by field grade rank. Army Engineers, however, must provide combat, general, and geospatial engineering capability. Therefore our accessions goal (not a requirement) is 70% STEM, 30% non stem so as to have Engineer officers who can provide the required capabilities that we must provide to the Army overall.
- Last year the Engineer Regiment accessed 96% STEM out of USMA and 76% STEM our of ROTC thus exceeding our goal. Pretty good considering that ROTC overall only produces 30% STEM. Stated another way for ROTC, 76% of our Engineer LTs came out of only 30% of the overall ROTC cadet population. How exactly has the Engineer Regiment "failed miserably" in this area?
- Your comparison with other fields (medical, social work, law, chaplain) has merit but also risk. The fields that you mentioned are generally specialists and often are viewed as specialists first and Army officers second. This may work well for general engineering but would work poorly for combat and geospatial engineering capability. These areas must have Army officers who are specialists and not specialists who happen to be Army officers.
- As a general statement you will often find a much better correlation between degree and profession in the private sector than you will in the public (military) sector. The reasons for this are several but the biggest is leadership in my opinion. The purpose of the military is to fight and win our nation's wars. The Army Profession boils down to expertise in the management of violence with sub specialists within the land, air, and sea domains. The application of this expertise is manifested through leadership which is different and more prominent within the military than it is within the private sector.
- I do not want to create the effect of shutting down the dialogue but your statement is factually incorrect and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of engineers within each of the services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines).
- The Marine Corps provides only combat engineering thus has no STEM requirement for its officers. The Air Force and Navy provide only general engineering capability therefore all of their officers are required to be STEM upon accession and obtain a PE by field grade rank. Army Engineers, however, must provide combat, general, and geospatial engineering capability. Therefore our accessions goal (not a requirement) is 70% STEM, 30% non stem so as to have Engineer officers who can provide the required capabilities that we must provide to the Army overall.
- Last year the Engineer Regiment accessed 96% STEM out of USMA and 76% STEM our of ROTC thus exceeding our goal. Pretty good considering that ROTC overall only produces 30% STEM. Stated another way for ROTC, 76% of our Engineer LTs came out of only 30% of the overall ROTC cadet population. How exactly has the Engineer Regiment "failed miserably" in this area?
- Your comparison with other fields (medical, social work, law, chaplain) has merit but also risk. The fields that you mentioned are generally specialists and often are viewed as specialists first and Army officers second. This may work well for general engineering but would work poorly for combat and geospatial engineering capability. These areas must have Army officers who are specialists and not specialists who happen to be Army officers.
- As a general statement you will often find a much better correlation between degree and profession in the private sector than you will in the public (military) sector. The reasons for this are several but the biggest is leadership in my opinion. The purpose of the military is to fight and win our nation's wars. The Army Profession boils down to expertise in the management of violence with sub specialists within the land, air, and sea domains. The application of this expertise is manifested through leadership which is different and more prominent within the military than it is within the private sector.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I think its great that the acessions of STEM has gone up, I am curious however of the percentages listed what portion of the STEM graduates have an ABET accredited degree and what percentage are simply degrees in biology, engineering technology etc. (not to say those degree's are bad but they won't help you get a PE)
On the subject of a PE- what value does the Army place on this if they are not going to make the distinction between a generalist and a specialist. In my opionion the Army does not provide appropriate experience in managing projects or explicit design work under a PE to warrant award of the designator (an opinion since all experiences may differ) the Army has already agreed to turn over all permenant construction and engineering to USACE so if an Army Engineer offcier never has to sign for liability or safety on the public's behalf what is the sense in asking Army Engineer Officers to Obtain a PE if they 1. will never have to use it 2. not be required to have an ABET accredited degree and not just a STEM degree from a four year institution.
I can see the requirement making sense if there was utilization by USACE in O-3/4/5 as an Engineering "Specialist" but the only billets that I am aware of that are privided by USACE are command positions (either district or Area offices) I've never worked in a USACE office so I can't say specifically what level of technical competence would be required to command but I would imagine it would be a lower level then what would be obtained via PE licensure.
This is just a statement about credientialing in general, it's obviously hard to pick and choose which credentials are more imporant than others to do a specific job. I work as a project manager in the civilian sector but I don't hold a PMP, nor do I feel the need to obtain one, but I can probably manage a project just as well if not better than someone who has obtained the credential but not the experience. The credential may teach me how to do my job slightly better but for the purposes of here and now it does nothing to advance my career and only serves as a buzzword to get my resume reviewed by another potential employer who might place value in it.
Correction after re-reading this I realized that promotion to O4 does not require a PE..
On the subject of a PE- what value does the Army place on this if they are not going to make the distinction between a generalist and a specialist. In my opionion the Army does not provide appropriate experience in managing projects or explicit design work under a PE to warrant award of the designator (an opinion since all experiences may differ) the Army has already agreed to turn over all permenant construction and engineering to USACE so if an Army Engineer offcier never has to sign for liability or safety on the public's behalf what is the sense in asking Army Engineer Officers to Obtain a PE if they 1. will never have to use it 2. not be required to have an ABET accredited degree and not just a STEM degree from a four year institution.
I can see the requirement making sense if there was utilization by USACE in O-3/4/5 as an Engineering "Specialist" but the only billets that I am aware of that are privided by USACE are command positions (either district or Area offices) I've never worked in a USACE office so I can't say specifically what level of technical competence would be required to command but I would imagine it would be a lower level then what would be obtained via PE licensure.
This is just a statement about credientialing in general, it's obviously hard to pick and choose which credentials are more imporant than others to do a specific job. I work as a project manager in the civilian sector but I don't hold a PMP, nor do I feel the need to obtain one, but I can probably manage a project just as well if not better than someone who has obtained the credential but not the experience. The credential may teach me how to do my job slightly better but for the purposes of here and now it does nothing to advance my career and only serves as a buzzword to get my resume reviewed by another potential employer who might place value in it.
Correction after re-reading this I realized that promotion to O4 does not require a PE..
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I can only answer to the last part. All the companies in my battalion have ASIs, either W4 and W6 or just W6. Pretty sure we aren't worried about trying to fill with ASI qualified individuals (severely short on officers) but they are coded.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
1LT Schreiber,
A couple comments about ASIs and MTOEs.
- MTOEs are documents that drive obtaining resources for operational commanders and to generate requirements for institutional courses. Once a commander gets those resources (or not), the decision of how to employ those resources is the commanders. The positions are not meant to be disqualifiers (IE can't be a non Ranger tabbed platoon leader in a ranger coded position).
- ASIs are a means to generate requirements and manage talent at a strategic level. They can also serve as a means to shape individual behavior by encouraging Soldiers to obtain certain ASIs.
- In other words, the Engineer Regiment is concerned about filling positions with qualified individuals but a concern is not a guarantee and availability of resources goes a long way to determining our probability of success in filling positions with qualified individuals.
A couple comments about ASIs and MTOEs.
- MTOEs are documents that drive obtaining resources for operational commanders and to generate requirements for institutional courses. Once a commander gets those resources (or not), the decision of how to employ those resources is the commanders. The positions are not meant to be disqualifiers (IE can't be a non Ranger tabbed platoon leader in a ranger coded position).
- ASIs are a means to generate requirements and manage talent at a strategic level. They can also serve as a means to shape individual behavior by encouraging Soldiers to obtain certain ASIs.
- In other words, the Engineer Regiment is concerned about filling positions with qualified individuals but a concern is not a guarantee and availability of resources goes a long way to determining our probability of success in filling positions with qualified individuals.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google