5
5
0
There seems to be a huge push in the ARMY today pushing SSD on soldiers. At what point is it no longer "self" development but rather some larger scheme to waste everyone involved's time - specifically disinterested leaders forcing irrelevant training on disinterested joes because of some downward pressure from CoC?
I can only speak for maintenance related MOS stuff, but it's literally brain dead click through training. There is little to no development being done, and it's a huge time burden for no benefit. How do you as a leader stomach forcing subordinates to endure this? Why are SSD completion rates being looked at within commands, and why are Commanders being evaluated by them?
Are there MOS where there is actually useful content in SSD?
TL:DR if Joe doesn't want to do it, let him ETS.
I can only speak for maintenance related MOS stuff, but it's literally brain dead click through training. There is little to no development being done, and it's a huge time burden for no benefit. How do you as a leader stomach forcing subordinates to endure this? Why are SSD completion rates being looked at within commands, and why are Commanders being evaluated by them?
Are there MOS where there is actually useful content in SSD?
TL:DR if Joe doesn't want to do it, let him ETS.
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
it seems as thou its a way for them to keep us pre-occupied between NCOES schools. I sure as hell didn't learn much from my SSDs. In fact I know that most of us just skip right thru it and get it done. Some even get paid for it.
(4)
(0)
SSG Trevor S.
I learned TONS from SSD courses:
1. How frustrating it is to loose a connection while trying to click next next next next.
2. How much the Army considers CYA as a training goal instead of actually seeing if an SM is "getting" the subject.
3. There is a certain engineering aspect to setting up robotix devices to continually click the mouse on the "next" button, without moving the mouse because of off center pressure.
ect.....
1. How frustrating it is to loose a connection while trying to click next next next next.
2. How much the Army considers CYA as a training goal instead of actually seeing if an SM is "getting" the subject.
3. There is a certain engineering aspect to setting up robotix devices to continually click the mouse on the "next" button, without moving the mouse because of off center pressure.
ect.....
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
SSD I was nothing but stuff that I learned in Basic Training in 1998. I don't know why they don't just keep it in the respective management course (because you can't teach leadership imo).
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I already completed my SSD1 Chief, and I don't really remember it beyond the clicking. Some of the stuff I remember because I learned it in training or I was interested in it but the rest of it, all gone.
(3)
(0)
Chief your not t wrong, but not all right either.
SSD and NCOES is set to provide a consist, and common level of knowledge.
If your "joe" is finding it "brain dead" simple, Congrats, you did well training them. Facts are, if that is the level set for that SSD course its because it was found to be knowledge lacking across the force in that peer group.
Now thats the TRADOC answer, the book answer . Reality might be, the course was built in a vacuum and it is not relative to current Sm taking the course,,, that does happen. Sometimes its a location thing where your units has already moved on to the "new" parts tracking system and the SSD course is still referencing the old system 75% of the force is still using.
Or worse, the POI took so long to write and then get approved and fielded, it is just plain out of date.
This is a time tested failure seen way back to the SQT days when Sm were tested on equipment still technically part of the MOS, but no active duty unit had seen that radio, Anti tank missile system, test equipment or sustainment software in years... but darned if you had better now know it if you wanted to score high and get permitted.
All that and it begs the question... at least two other service still ling testing to promotion I thing, air force and Navy
so Af and Navy guys (gender immaterial) when you take your "test" for the next rate, is it relevant to the system, equipment, boat, radio, weapon system you use NOW, or is it sometimes a "thing" you have never seen, or not used in your unit since you got there, or worse, outdated and no longer in use at all?
If the AF and Navy can make the testing process work..... then the Army needs to do some cross training
SSD and NCOES is set to provide a consist, and common level of knowledge.
If your "joe" is finding it "brain dead" simple, Congrats, you did well training them. Facts are, if that is the level set for that SSD course its because it was found to be knowledge lacking across the force in that peer group.
Now thats the TRADOC answer, the book answer . Reality might be, the course was built in a vacuum and it is not relative to current Sm taking the course,,, that does happen. Sometimes its a location thing where your units has already moved on to the "new" parts tracking system and the SSD course is still referencing the old system 75% of the force is still using.
Or worse, the POI took so long to write and then get approved and fielded, it is just plain out of date.
This is a time tested failure seen way back to the SQT days when Sm were tested on equipment still technically part of the MOS, but no active duty unit had seen that radio, Anti tank missile system, test equipment or sustainment software in years... but darned if you had better now know it if you wanted to score high and get permitted.
All that and it begs the question... at least two other service still ling testing to promotion I thing, air force and Navy
so Af and Navy guys (gender immaterial) when you take your "test" for the next rate, is it relevant to the system, equipment, boat, radio, weapon system you use NOW, or is it sometimes a "thing" you have never seen, or not used in your unit since you got there, or worse, outdated and no longer in use at all?
If the AF and Navy can make the testing process work..... then the Army needs to do some cross training
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My guess is the training suffered from a resources problem. When I first heard of SSD, it sounded like a great idea. Unfortunately, as happens all too often, resource constraints hinder the actual execution. I saw something similar when I was on an OJT assignment to an AIT school when I was an intern. The leadership really wanted to improve the training and make it meaningful, but they were severely limited by resources which limited their ability implement their plans. So this, like so many other things turns into a check the block scenario.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google