Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 275

Thread: Initial Officer Selection

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    What happens to the 50% who fail?
    They go home. As do those that are selected but decline a commission, which is different than the Army, where those who don't graduate often end up being assigned to an enlisted job according to the needs of the Army.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    What is the cost of training those who don't make it?
    Cheap. In comparison to training them. USMA spends $400,000-$800,000 and has no selection mechanism aside from the admissions process. OCS costs a fraction of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    What psychological impact does this (largely avoidable failure) have on these individuals? Are they lost to the service? Is there not some room for improvement in the initial selection process?
    I'm not worried about those that aren't selected as much as I am getting the best.

    Leadership isn't the thing to focus on. Integrity, intestinal fortitude and team playing are very important.

    When I went through Army OCS, we has a student 1SG who reported a cadre member to the 1SG for the heinous crime of allowing them off a punishment detail early.

    When asked why, he smiled and said "because I intend to get an Excellence [rating]."

    That, right there, is an example of someone who has the wrong motivations. Had he ignored the situation to help his colleagues I could respect his decision. Had he told the 1SG in the interest of consistency, fairness, discipline or upholding the standard, I could agree. But those that are motivated for personal profit cannot be taught to be good leaders.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Some friendly questions for clarity... not to be seen as provocative please.

    Quote Originally Posted by jpk View Post
    Initial selection is... not very valuable.
    Lets call it initial pre-course selection.

    This is my point of this thread. IMHO it should be valuable. Otherwise you waste time, money and effort on people who have no chance of making it.

    It certainly dismays those who are not determined (it takes about a year from the day you walk into a recruiters office to OCS),...
    That then is a self inflicted wound. Why not put them through a normal recruits course and then some time with the trained soldiers (while waiting for OCS)... and maybe a quick trip to the rockpile? (You learn a lot about a person by observing him under fire)

    ... but leadership cannot be screened for.
    Not sure about that. Maybe not if all one has to go on are reports school teachers etc. I believe the idea of the Brit AOSB is to create situations where the leadership ability and or potential of candidates can be observed. (See Youtube videos posted above in post #4 to this thread)

    My OCS class started with 128, only 87 commissioned as 2lt's. Many of those would did not make it went to good schools, got good grades had fine jobs ect.
    Our distinguished leader grad failed out of college the first time and finished at some tec school no one has never heard of. But I would follow him into anything. That just goes to prove being a leader is completely different than the resume padding kids do now a days.
    I have a masters in Middle eastern studies and know arabic, does that make me a good officer? No. Does charisma matter? No.
    IMHO It all comes down to two things. 1st. I am willing to suffer for those around me. 2nd can I make the hard decision at the right time.
    Few have it. After 12 weeks you know who do.

    Now to adress your other question, what happens to those who fail. In most cases you get recycled and can class up with another company. Some chapter out of the army, some go AIT. If you cannot get through OCS the second time you need to be let go. It is just not that hard of a course. I am sure it is crushing to fail.
    30 odd years ago this would not have caused me to raise an eyebrow.

    But now consider this. That a third failed would indicate that the initial selection could be improved, yes? This third indicates a wate of time, money and effort IMHO.

    Well as to the academic qualifcations. How much is enough? I would settle for a set minimum standard for acceptance. The same for the physical. He/she either can or they can't... a pass or fail situation. Has he/she met the academic requirements? And more than the requirement is a bonus. Is he/she pshysically able to carry out the duties of an officer? Any bigger, stronger, fitter is a bonus.

    That said I question the 60:30:10 breakdown of the 'whole person' grading sustem. In my humble opinion the academic (60%) and the physical (10%) should be pass or fail. I would also question the vality of the 30% allocated to leadership potential as measured by high school sports participation and high school teacher recommendations.

    So what I am suggesting is that phase on is to ascertain whether he/she meets the academic and physical standards required. If yes then a process run by the military (like the Brit AOSB) should select for leadership potential as a second stage. Proof positive of leadership qualities are essential if the candidate is to progress to the training IMHO.

    The Initial selection needs to be tighter. But by what metrics?
    Think I have covered that above.

    Also think of the needs of the Army - does that reserve quartermaster need to be a stud?
    You get your reserve quartermasters out of direct entry OCS courses?

    I would have thought that the best candidates for this type of position would be seasoned and experienced NCOs with 15 plus years of experience, yes?
    (T&A Commissions (technical and administrative) are/were a Brit method of promoting NCOs with the ability, service and experience from warrant officer to commissioned officer. Worked well.)

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default Usmc ocs

    I can speak at some length about USMC OCS, having graduated just over two years ago. It was pretty selective when I went through, and has gotten dramatically more so in the last two years. Potential candidates go through a selection board, where Physical Fitness Test (PFT), college grades, recommendations, interview with your recruiter, and a host of other factors weigh in. The Marine Corps takes recruiting very seriously BTW.

    OCS itself is a ten week officer boot camp (vice 13 on the enlisted side), with a little less of the mind games but a much larger leadership screening component. The latter is based on many factors, but one of the biggest ones are billets in small unit blank fire tactical scenarios (fire team and squad sized) and some fire team leadership puzzles (get this barrel over this 20 meter water obstacle using only a rope, pipes, and each other, in five minutes, etc.). I think the latter idea was borrowed from the Reichswehr.

    Attrition in my platoon was pretty low, around 25-30%. Should have been a little higher.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SethB View Post
    They go home. As do those that are selected but decline a commission, which is different than the Army, where those who don't graduate often end up being assigned to an enlisted job according to the needs of the Army.
    I'm not sure of the total number involved here. But looking back it seems such a waste to squander to the opportunity to accommodate young people who had at one point significant interest in a carreer in the services.

    I question as I did with the current Brit system why they are commissioned before they are fully trained and ready to command a platoon in battle. The Brits do the AOSB as a pre-course initial selection (over a total of 6 days) followed by the Officers Course of 48 weeks when they are commissioned and then attend the 16 week Platoon Commanders Battle Course after which they are posted to their units and take command of their platoons. Although 80% plus of cadets who start the Officers Course are graduates it is not a requirement prior to commisssioning. (Red Rat correct me here if necessary).

    Why not hold back the commissions until after the successful completion of the 16 week Platoon Commanders Battle Course (to allow for those who perform poorly to exit out the side door).

    My approach to the academic is that the military needs control over what degree courses are taken and indeed what lines of study are beneficial to the military and the officers carreer. The only value I can see in the requirement for a degree before commissioning is that the officers at platoon level will be a few years older and perhaps more mature. I would argue that it would be better to take the kids in young and raw and blood them. Once the settling has taken place where the service likes what it sees and believes there is a future for the individual and the individual wants to stay in the servive then the service can invest in his/her future by sending them to university. (I would suggest that in the case of those who it is apparrent do not have a carreer beyond major that they too can be released to go to college to get a suitable qualification for their futures)

    Back to the point. As time passes I am less supportive of the approach where volunteers (for officer training or special units etc) are sucked in and then spat out if they don't make the grade. I am the first one to insist that standards be maintained but I do believe that the methods need to be refined and be honourable in all respects.

    Cheap. In comparison to training them. USMA spends $400,000-$800,000 and has no selection mechanism aside from the admissions process. OCS costs a fraction of that.
    It seems the USMA is a different kettle of fish altogether. So I don't necessarily agree with the "well we waste less money than they do" approach. Waste is waste and better (more thorough) initial pre-course selection will reduce that.

    I'm not worried about those that aren't selected as much as I am getting the best.
    The end result is critical but the method of arriving there can be finnessed to get the best without treating the rest like sh*t. Should be the natural approach of an officer, yes?

    Leadership isn't the thing to focus on. Integrity, intestinal fortitude and team playing are very important.
    Al Capone and many of his mates had proven leadership skills but probably little integrity. I suggest that leadership is the most important aspect. Find out who those are who have it and then filter out those lacking in the moral behaviour and judgement needed in the service (this does not apply only to officers). The papaer Research and Study Group 31 - Officer Selection contains a good piece about the real leadership required by officers. Worth a read to see if we are on the same page on this.

    When I went through Army OCS, we has a student 1SG who reported a cadre member to the 1SG for the heinous crime of allowing them off a punishment detail early.

    When asked why, he smiled and said "because I intend to get an Excellence [rating]."

    That, right there, is an example of someone who has the wrong motivations. Had he ignored the situation to help his colleagues I could respect his decision. Had he told the 1SG in the interest of consistency, fairness, discipline or upholding the standard, I could agree. But those that are motivated for personal profit cannot be taught to be good leaders.
    There is a line between honesty and responsibility and being a f**king snitch. I can't believe that this sort behaviour is encouraged in the US services. I will confront a person personally and individually if I believe his out of line but will never run to the teacher with tattle tails. Man, the thought of this makes me want to throw-up.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Granite_State View Post
    I can speak at some length about USMC OCS, having graduated just over two years ago. It was pretty selective when I went through, and has gotten dramatically more so in the last two years. Potential candidates go through a selection board, where Physical Fitness Test (PFT), college grades, recommendations, interview with your recruiter, and a host of other factors weigh in. The Marine Corps takes recruiting very seriously BTW.

    OCS itself is a ten week officer boot camp (vice 13 on the enlisted side), with a little less of the mind games but a much larger leadership screening component. The latter is based on many factors, but one of the biggest ones are billets in small unit blank fire tactical scenarios (fire team and squad sized) and some fire team leadership puzzles (get this barrel over this 20 meter water obstacle using only a rope, pipes, and each other, in five minutes, etc.). I think the latter idea was borrowed from the Reichswehr.

    Attrition in my platoon was pretty low, around 25-30%. Should have been a little higher.
    As a young officer IMHO it is important to analyse everything around him and constantly try to figure out how the aim can be achieved in a better, quicker, more effective manner. I still do this 40 years later and I still see things which we/I did wrong or could have done better or more effectively.

    BTW the barrel, ropes, pipes and a box full of stones is one of the AOSB group exercises. Watching that exercise is very revealing (and often hilarious) if you are a DS (directing staff). Who says the military is not fun

  6. #26
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thee and me...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I still do this 40 years later and I still see things which we/I did wrong or could have done better or more effectively.
    Me too on the first. On the latter, too many in my case...
    Who says the military is not fun
    Not I. My errors were fortunately mostly harmless and I certainly had a ball for 30 years (and almost as much fun for another 18 as a silly-villian employeeeek).

  7. #27
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    I believe there is a series of U.S. Army Regulations that describe the proccesses and steps required to be selected for pre-commissioning training. I'm positive that they spell out in very specific detail what is required, be it for USMA, ROTC, or OCS. For a select few there are also direct commissions and battlefield commissions.

    There is a smoke-in-the-wind aspect about this thread about what should be or could be, rather than what is. Check the regulations and see what they say.

    By and large our personnel system is set up for rapid mobilization during times of national (or Personnel Command numbers-crunch) emergency, not for a more methodical selection process during peacetime or low-intensity war. Perhaps in a better world there could be a greater depth of analysis the lower the threat level to the country is. Even then it's a crap-shoot because sometimes the maniacs with obvious flaws make better combat leaders than their more restrained and low-key peers.

    NCO Promotion Boards have been known to reject guys who never received an Article 15, like they must be rule-abiding sissies, wimps or something worse. No guts no glory.

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    NCO Promotion Boards have been known to reject guys who never received an Article 15, like they must be rule-abiding sissies, wimps or something worse. No guts no glory.
    I assure you that we (the Army) no longer have that mindset.

    As far as mass mobilization, I'm not very worried about having to do it. I think we will fight with what we have, and it will be small enough to not require mobilization, or it will be over before we could set up a draft anyway.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default Donkin on work...

    Interesting short article by a journalist who covered an ASOB 30 years after he attended one (and failed).

    Donkin on Work - Leadership


    I quote:

    A popular misconception about the board is that it is looking for future generals. This is not the case. The selection board for the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, is looking for those who have the potential to be a second lieutenant leading a platoon or a troop.
    I question this as if all you are looking for is someone to command a platoon most armies have an amazing number competent and experienced NCOs who can do that with ease.

    This narrow view and concentration on the first step of the officer ladder may be one of the reasons why officer retention beyond subaltern is becoming a problem in many militaries. We may differ in this view.

  10. #30
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default A twofer...

    SethB:
    As far as mass mobilization, I'm not very worried about having to do it. I think we will fight with what we have, and it will be small enough to not require mobilization, or it will be over before we could set up a draft anyway.
    You may or may not be right. FWIW, roughly the same prediction was made by many in the 20s, the late 40s and again in the 50s and 70s. I don't think you are correct but what you or I think is immaterial, The Army and the Nation cannot afford to and will not operate on that premise. Like it or not, we're big and have to be prepared to be far bigger.

    JMA:
    I question this as if all you are looking for is someone to command a platoon most armies have an amazing number competent and experienced NCOs who can do that with ease.

    This narrow view and concentration on the first step of the officer ladder may be one of the reasons why officer retention beyond subaltern is becoming a problem in many militaries. We may differ in this view.
    No differing by me for one, I think you're spot on. The French, by tradition have two Lieutenants commanding Platoons and the other two are commanded by NCOs. Seems a sensible way to provide experience for a select few who are being groomed to do Officer stuff at echelons above company...

    We say we're training future Commanders and Leaders and then we place most in an environment where they are charged with rote operations of questionable value while their drive and initiative gets trampled by set piece training and operations -- that drives many to depart after five years or so and the Army accepts that because a big war will see them called back.

    The selection comments you made above are correct IMO. Pete is also mostly correct on why we do what we do. What we have done to pad the mobilization roster is to significantly 'over Officer' US Forces. We have a veritable horde of Generals; same rough number we had at the end of WW II and in the 80s with an almost 800K Army (and we were over officered than; we still have the same rough numbers with about 250-300k fewer troops). We're not approaching USSR norms yet but we do seem headed that way.

    Those charged with selecting and training future Officers are generally doing the best they can with the hand they've been dealt and the products are generally really pretty good (there are always going to be a few less than stellar slip-throughs...) -- the real problem is that our Personnel system does not support the Army, it drives it...

  11. #31
    Council Member Red Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Currently based in Europe
    Posts
    336

    Default

    There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.

    6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.
    RR

    "War is an option of difficulties"

  12. #32
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Rat View Post
    There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.
    During the 1990s in the U.S. Army having a master's degree seemed to be a prerequisite for being promoted to major. I don't know whether the same thing is true today.

    The thing I can't understand about this situation is that there seems to be an inverse relationship between the number of people having advanced degrees in a specialty or profession and the quality of that particular career field in the U.S. today. The quality of American industries and businesses seems to have gotten worse with every MBA that is awarded to an individual who is then hired. Our kids in school seem to get dumber and even more stupider as the number of teachers having master's degrees in education increases.

    I don't know, maybe it's just me.

  13. #33
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Rat View Post
    There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.

    6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.
    During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  14. #34
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    SethB: We have a veritable horde of Generals; same rough number we had at the end of WW II and in the 80s with an almost 800K Army ...
    Part of the reason for that is not the personnel guys' fault; rather it is the perverse logic of the TDA Army, in which nobody will treat you seriously unless the CO of your organization is of equivalent rank to that of my CO or my staff-weenie boss in Washington. It turns into "my Dad can beat up your Dad" situations. Thus we have TDA organizations that could be ably commanded by lieutenant colonels which instead have one- or two-stars in charge.

    If we ever decide to trim back the Army we should take a serious look at the vast TDA organization empires that have grown up since 1945. Many of them would function more smoothly with less people.
    Last edited by Pete; 08-31-2011 at 05:36 PM.

  15. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?
    You probably need to look at West Point.

    I suggest that the Brits have fewer routes to a commission than in the US services but this is understandable due to the every shrinking size of the Brit forces. The Brits went from two-year course to one-year some time ago (with a four-month platoon commanders (MoS?) added on afterwards). Reasons anyone?

    You may want to consider a four-year commissioning process which includes an academic degree and look into retention beyond the five years.

    West Point like Sandhurst are national institutions which are almost impossible to tinker with... say no more.
    Last edited by JMA; 09-01-2011 at 04:59 AM.

  16. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Rat View Post
    There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.
    What range of degrees? I wonder apart from the added maturity and life skills and generally improved education level how this all helps the young infantry officer comply with his role... which is to close with and kill the enemy?

    (You know my position is that it would serve the military better to send the officers with long term potential off to a civilian university around the rank of major to study something of military value (that said I accept that in some of the technical corps earlier study by an officer would be advantageous).

    6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.
    It would be interesting to establish the ages and ranks of the 6-10% who enter Sandhurst from the ranks (with 29 years being the cut off I understand).

  17. #37
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    You probably need to look at West Point.
    I’ve never known any West Point graduates, but having met a couple of Naval Academy alums I have to say that my impression is that U.S. service academies manage to turn a lot of ambitious and promising young men and women’s energies towards arbitrary activities that seem to a non-professional to have no necessary relation to being better at being an officer. Don’t know if RMAS is anything like that, but if it is at least it only lasts for a year. (I get that counting the bristles on your toothbrush or whatever can be important just because, but for four years? )
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  18. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    JMA:No differing by me for one, I think you're spot on. The French, by tradition have two Lieutenants commanding Platoons and the other two are commanded by NCOs. Seems a sensible way to provide experience for a select few who are being groomed to do Officer stuff at echelons above company...
    Having arrived at the School of Infantry directly off ops it was like entering another world. In that environment there was a disconnect between what was happening on the ground in the war and in that august training establishment. In wartime one tends to address the immediate issues and let the future look after itself (however that turns out). To their credit there was no necessity to lower the standards to get more junior officers into the field as it was understood that where there was no platoon commander (officer) the platoon sergeant would (and could) do the job.

    We say we're training future Commanders and Leaders and then we place most in an environment where they are charged with rote operations of questionable value while their drive and initiative gets trampled by set piece training and operations -- that drives many to depart after five years or so and the Army accepts that because a big war will see them called back.
    The tend does tend to get lost over time unless ever new idea is tested against the stated aim and intension before being adopted. You are old enough to remember the Peter Principle. What I remember best from it was this as quoted in an artile:

    In the chapter `Follower and Leaders', Peter points out the hierarchiological fallacies. He cites the example of the mother of George Washington who, when asked how her son was so accomplished as a General, answered: "I taught him to obey." Peter asks how the ability to lead depends on the ability to follow, as though the ability to float depends on the ability to sink.
    We know you can't herd cats so the tendency is to adapt and apply spin to make the crushing of initiative and spirit sound almost noble.

    Yes, and the wasted investment when so many leave after five years is justified as you say. They will be available for a future 'big' war through the Reserve. How many people do you think actually believe this?

    It takes a pretty mature group of people (or desperate circumstances) for the ‘sacred cows’ to be tackled and revised. Constant review and constant change must be encouraged (unless it will lead to a loss in the annual Army Navy sports competitions that is )

  19. #39
    Council Member Red Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Currently based in Europe
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?
    Yes and No.

    The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) is a bit like the Westpoint and the other military academies in the US in that it is a route (in the UK it is the only route) to commissioning. It differs in that it is not a degree awarding institution. The one year RMAS course is primarily designed to develop firstly robust leadership, and secondly a basic level of professional military knowledge. A large part of the syllabus is spent in the field on tactical exercises as a way of developing leadership (with a side benefit of developing tactical proficiency).
    RR

    "War is an option of difficulties"

  20. #40
    Council Member Red Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Currently based in Europe
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    What range of degrees? I wonder apart from the added maturity and life skills and generally improved education level how this all helps the young infantry officer comply with his role... which is to close with and kill the enemy?
    All sorts of degrees (mine is in Philosophy ). Apart from the advantages that you elucidate above there is a feeling that there is an adavantage in having a broadly educated officer corps. The main reason however that so many officers have a degree is the amount of social engineering that has happened in the last 15 or so years where the Government stated that they wanted half of all school leavers to have a degree; it is now very hard not to get people with a degree... Add to this the changes to the (Army) career system whereby initial entry is on a short service commission for 4-6 years, then by competitive selection to an Intermediate Regular Commission (12 years) and then Regular Commission (up until the age of 55). Because people cannot join for a full career on application a great many hedge their bets by taking a degreee as well.

    Professionally Qualified Officers (PQOs - doctors, nurses, cghaplains and lawyers) arrive with the recognised qualification and com plete a 6 week course at RMAS. Engineers (civil or otherwise) have to complete the full year at RMAS.

    In terms of course length, in the 1970s and early 1980s Regular Commission officers conducted 2 years of training at RMAS and Short Service Commission officers completed 12 months training at Mons Officer academy. IIRC that it was felt that 2 years was somewhat extravagent and Mons was shut with all officers completing a 12 month course at RMAS (less graduates who were an exceptional breed in those days and completed only 6 or 9 months training at RMAS).

    Most cadets at RMAS are in the 21-28 age bracket. This ties in with most students graduating aged 21 or 22. Apocryphally most officers from the ranks are aged about the same, assuming they joined at 18/19, realised within two years that they wanted to apply for a commission and then it takes up to 2 years to move them through the selection process to RMAS. The Army is trying to shorted the length of time it takes between a soldier expressing an interest in applying for a commission and getting him to RMAS.
    RR

    "War is an option of difficulties"

Similar Threads

  1. The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL
    By jmm99 in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 07-28-2013, 06:41 PM
  2. Training the Operational Staff
    By Eden in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 11:39 AM
  3. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  4. Officer Retention
    By Patriot in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 360
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 05:47 PM
  5. New US Army Officer training
    By KenDawe in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-06-2005, 08:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •