Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 275

Thread: Initial Officer Selection

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    No offense, but the recruitment procedure for officers in UK Army seems a little easy (judging by the two videos). Physical and planning tests looked good but GD and PI were not good enough, no idea about the written test.

    I faced a tougher competition in GD and PI for getting admission in my college for a simple bachelor's degree and it wasn't even the best in the city, let alone the state or country.

    More than 350,000 applied for the written exams for NDA, and NA this year. This does not include CDS.

    http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-officials-nda

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    30

    Default

    In Finland active officers don't need pre-existing university degree (apart from specialist officers, but they are different kind of breed) because cadets go through three year bachelor's degree in Military science.

    Requirements for cadet training are secondary level education and either reserve officer or reserve non-commisioned officer training.

    Selection process lasts two days and it consists of
    First day (Everyone does same time):
    Aptitude test for ability
    Aptitude test for personality
    Studying material for next day's literature exam

    Second day (Timetable depends which platoon you belong)
    Cooper's test
    Interview
    Group test
    Medical examination
    Literature exam (everyone does same time)

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsJ컴K Korte View Post
    In Finland active officers don't need pre-existing university degree (apart from specialist officers, but they are different kind of breed) because cadets go through three year bachelor's degree in Military science.

    Requirements for cadet training are secondary level education and either reserve officer or reserve non-commisioned officer training.

    Selection process lasts two days and it consists of
    First day (Everyone does same time):
    Aptitude test for ability
    Aptitude test for personality
    Studying material for next day's literature exam

    Second day (Timetable depends which platoon you belong)
    Cooper's test
    Interview
    Group test
    Medical examination
    Literature exam (everyone does same time)
    Thanks for the contribution.

    Two questions, please.

    What is the 'Cooper's test'?

    And what percentage of those who start the course pass-out in the end and at what point of the course do most fall out?

  4. #44
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Thanks for the contribution.

    Two questions, please.

    What is the 'Cooper's test'?

    And what percentage of those who start the course pass-out in the end and at what point of the course do most fall out?
    Oh. It seems to be Cooper test in english instead of Cooper's test
    You have to run as "far" as you can in 12 minutes.
    Minimum lenght of run for career soldier in Finland is 2600m.
    Also I tried to find out on pass-outs and fall-out, but nothing came up.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blueblood View Post
    No offense, but the recruitment procedure for officers in UK Army seems a little easy (judging by the two videos). Physical and planning tests looked good but GD and PI were not good enough, no idea about the written test.

    I faced a tougher competition in GD and PI for getting admission in my college for a simple bachelor's degree and it wasn't even the best in the city, let alone the state or country.

    More than 350,000 applied for the written exams for NDA, and NA this year. This does not include CDS.

    http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-officials-nda
    I don't want to get into an argument with you but I need to say that looking at those two videos no one can reach a definitive opinion on the quality or otherwise of the aspects of the Brit AOSB.

    My interest in this subject is how best to structure the initial pre-course sekection process so as to reduce the attrition rate during the course itself.

    I believe that on the information available the Brits run the most comprehensive pre-course selection process (the AOSB in two parts - first for two days then the 'main board' for four days). I hope to get a reply as to their attrition rate over the 44 weeks until commissioning.

    Selection of youngsters with leadership potential does not have to be tough... it needs to be rigourous enough to be accurate... thats all.

    I'm am also trying to get beyond the feel good situation that comes with the perception that those who pass are of the chosen few and get down to work out which is the most efficient system.

    In this process I am constantly reminded what TE Lawrence said about the Brit officer around WW1 - that there was too much body and not enough mind - they have made progress in fixing this I believe (some believe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction).
    Last edited by JMA; 09-03-2011 at 04:53 PM.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsJ컴K Korte View Post
    Oh. It seems to be Cooper test in english instead of Cooper's test
    You have to run as "far" as you can in 12 minutes.
    Minimum lenght of run for career soldier in Finland is 2600m.
    OK, thanks found the info here.

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I don't want to get into an argument with you but I need to say that looking at those two videos no one can reach a definitive opinion on the quality or otherwise of the aspects of the Brit AOSB.

    My interest in this subject is how best to structure the initial pre-course sekection process so as to reduce the attrition rate during the course itself.

    I believe that on the information available the Brits run the most comprehensive pre-course selection process (the AOSB in two parts - first for two days then the 'main board' for four days). I hope to get a reply as to their attrition rate over the 44 weeks until commissioning.

    Selection of youngsters with leadership potential does not have to be tough... it needs to be rigourous enough to be accurate... thats all.

    I'm am also trying to get beyond the feel good situation that comes with the perception that those who pass are of the chosen few and get down to work out which is the most efficient system.

    In this process I am constantly reminded what TE Lawrence said about the Brit officer around WW1 - that there was too much body and not enough mind - they have made progress in fixing this I believe (some believe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction).
    I apologize if I have offended you in any way. JMA, my grandfather was a British Indian Army officer from 1942-1950, so I was always under the impression that becoming an officer in Royal Army is a very tough nut to crack. But as I said, videos suggested the other way. I could be wrong, but the way I see it, that the cream of British population is shying away from the armed forces.

    BTW, I do not have any doubt that the British training is still one of the best
    in the world. I have seen a reality TV series about Royal Marines and their training was extremely good from what I judged from a layman's point of view.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blueblood View Post
    I apologize if I have offended you in any way. JMA, my grandfather was a British Indian Army officer from 1942-1950, so I was always under the impression that becoming an officer in Royal Army is a very tough nut to crack. But as I said, videos suggested the other way. I could be wrong, but the way I see it, that the cream of British population is shying away from the armed forces.
    Not that easily offended but thanks for the concern.

    I suggest that if you cast your mind back to when you were 18-22 and consider who you would choose as a leader if you were to be confronted by a life or death situation. Would it be the biggest guy? The sttrongest guy? The one who could run the the furtherest, the fastest? Maybe none of the above. Maybe it would be difficult to explain/define/quantify how you selected him?

    This is what I am tying to establish. What are these important intangibles and what is the best/most efficient/accurate way of selecting those with these characteristics.

    BTW, I do not have any doubt that the British training is still one of the best in the world. I have seen a reality TV series about Royal Marines and their training was extremely good from what I judged from a layman's point of view.
    Oh BTW I am not an apologist for the Brits.

    Winston Churchill once said: "The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sometimes the same must be said of the Brits as well.

    The Royal Marines are up there with the best... but don't be fooled by a video.
    Last edited by JMA; 09-03-2011 at 06:12 PM.

  9. #49
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    You're welcome.

    I am 23 right now, so its a non issue.
    I'll go with the smartest guy with a decent fitness level. If physical fitness alone is the criteria, then a NCO may be more qualified than an officer. AFAIK, officers are there to lead and plan whereas grunts are there for firepower.

    I have never understood what Winston Churchill was. Sometimes he appeared to be a great leader, sometimes a plain fool and a liar. But that could be my prejudice for I am an Indian.

    JMA, let me provide you some info about Indian recruitment procedure, so you can provide a fair assessment with respect to other armies.

    For 10+2 - National Defence Academy (NDA), tri service.

    http://nda.nic.in/html/nda-admission-details.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Academy_(India)

    For graduation and above

    Combined Defence Servies (CDS)

    A written exam, if cleared followed by a Services Selection Board (SSB).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Services_Selection_Board

    http://arindam.wordpress.com/2008/02...ssb-interview/

    Engineers if recruited from college campus can skip the entrance exam appear directly for SSB.

  10. #50
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thanks for posring those links/

    Very impressive test and assessment cycle...

  11. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default The Selection Process of Joining Bangladesh Army

    The Selection Process of Joining Bangladesh Army is well laid out in the blog.

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default Defence and Freedom Blog

    In his blog our friend Fuchs has two enteries which connect to this issue:

    "Natural", self-organised small units?


    Self organization; online gamer clans and Germanic warbands

    From the latter I quote:

    The model with the best individual warrior being the leader is furthermore inherently inferior to a model which requires the leader to be a good leader. It's reasonable to assume that some evolutionary selection mechanism is at work in the realm of raiding warbands. This raises additional doubts about the standard description of ancient Germanic warbands.
    If Fuchs would like to expand on that here in relation to how one can select for leadership prior to exposure in structured training (in peacetime) or in combat (during a war) it would be appreciated.

    Certainly in the last ten years ample opportuniuties have presented themselves to test leadership of junior officers (and naturally NCOs) in combat settings to ascertain whether these officers are followed through alacrity or through the imposed system or through curiosity.

    What has happened to those young officers who have found to be lacking? What should happen to those who have proved limited in this regard?
    Last edited by JMA; 09-10-2011 at 07:23 AM.

  13. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    In an off-board discussion one military approached for stats has thrown up a bureaucratic wall. This is less a question of trying to hide something (IMHO) but rather a matter of bureaucrats flexing their muscles.

    Simple statistics required are:

    What percentage of those who apply for officer training pass the pre-course selection?

    What percentage of those who start the course are commissioned at the end?

    Not exactly a state secret... or is it?

    Another statistic of value will be the number of those who 'drop-out' from the course do so on their own accord. In other words those who realise for one reason or tuther that this (military stuff) is really not for them.

  14. #54

  15. #55
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    You need time for the bottom-up selection process. Therefore, this worked in societies/groups in which the difference between is and peace was quite small, the potential leader had ample of time to prove himself. For me it is quite obvious that nomades or people who hunt in larger groups can really gain from a buttom-up process, to a certain extend Swiss Reichslufer or Landsknechte belong to the same group. Modern online gamer have of course the same opportunity.

    Attemps with chosing superiors by the soldiers in armys of societies with large differences between war and peace usually fail (e.g. French revulution, ACW).
    Last edited by Ulenspiegel; 09-10-2011 at 12:10 PM.

  16. #56
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Pirates were also self-organising (and the late Carribbean pirates were probably the most democratic societies of their period!).

  17. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Excellent response!

    Must post it here is full:

    My key thesis is that you can spot natural leaders easier by watching people around them than by watching the potential leader himself.

    You will not spot them if you put together a group of potential leaders, but if you put them into a normal sample group they might arise into natural leadership, kind of take over the group and lead it (at least in regard to specific problems).

    Why not in a group of potential leaders? I experienced that before. They fight for power or at least reject unfounded claims for power or for having the lead voice.

    A normal sample group finding its natural leader is quite close to having a squad well-trained and then seeing their only NCO die in battle. Who of the enlisted men -qualified by training as all of them- will take the lead, and be followed?

    The German army began to prepare exactly for this before the First World War, and very often accepted such emergency leaders into NCO rank if they did well enough.

    Such natural leaders are not necessarily the best decision-makers, but at least they get loyalty much easier than others (who might need the authority and powers given by the institution to lead men). This should result in superior team morale.
    There is a lot to discuss here, but let's select a few items.

    Your first comment is good and is what can normally be observed during a recruits course for entry level soldiers. But not all (and in many countries) and indeed a small minority of officers are produced through the ranks (with Israel being a notable exception). And yes how others react to them (the potential leaders) is almost more important than how they themselves act in certain circumstances.

    The people who apply to go on an officers course generally believe they are 'leaders' (by some definition which makes them believe so) or they have been told by parents and/or teachers that they are leaders or have leadership potential.

    So they arrive en masse for the AOSB or pre-course selection (as applicable in different countries) and the DS (directing staff) have to shift through the assembled multitude. In my experience this normally starts with a paper sort into syndicates/groups of six-eight candidates.

    I believe that the leaderless group activities allow the more forceful (not necessarily the best leaders) to assert themselves over the group but once a level of 'stress' is added (normally in tasks which require physical effort) the leadership pattern often changes/alters within the group. In the programme of the longer Brit type AOSB there are also physical group activities where specific candidates are nominated as group leader. And yes here you watch the nominated leader and also the rest of the syndicate very carefully. You learn so much about a person by simply observing them in different circumstances.

    I suggest you are looking for leaders who will rise to the occasion and be accepted as leaders when they are given command of a platoon in due course. There has to be a spark (of leadership potential) in there from the outset.

    While I agree in principle with theory on leadership succession in small groups squad/section the officer situation is that we need to select for leaders who can be inserted halfway up the rank structure and take command of an infantry platoon in battle (which would typically have a combined total of 100 years plus of military service amongst the men in the platoon). This is significantly different to hierarchical succession in small groups IMHO.

    OK so finally, when you have a course full of leaders you can filter for decision making ability. Some of this is attempted on a Brit style AOSB.

    Thank you for your input. It is thought stimulating and I respond with what seems logical to me right now. Feel free to debate my assumptions.

  18. #58
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    There is an additional problem; leaders are not necessarily trying to lead all the time (or so I think).

    My personal experience is for example that I had rather leadership episodes in my life than a continuous quest for alpha male position. At times I didn't see a need for leadership, other times I preferred to opt-out of group dynamics or oppose existing leadership. And then there were episodes when the system cheated me so badly that I preferred to oppose it by making a fool of it; identifying and exploiting its holes. To lead a pack in a futile effort to oppose the system seemed pointless, and I didn't try it.

    You might end up with false negatives even in great natural leader test regimes.

  19. #59
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    The people who could choose their leaders must have an good idea what their future leader has to do, therefore, they need to now the trade themselves. How do you create in an western army this knowledge among the enlisted men who have to choose their NCOs or company officers?

    My feeling is, that the current system, which was codified around 1700, is a result of the large discrepancy between life in times of war and times of peace.
    Last edited by Ulenspiegel; 09-10-2011 at 03:45 PM.

  20. #60
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel View Post
    The people who could choose their leaders must have an good idea what their future leader has to do, therefore, they need to now the trade themselves. How do you create in an western army this knowledge among the enlisted men who have to choose their NCOs or company officers?
    It's not about choosing in emergencies, but about following who takes the lead.

    Sometime around 1906 (IIRC - memory is tricky) the German army (or Prussian - at that time the institution was divided) decided that their Gefreiter (an experienced enlisted man) had to be proficient enough to take over the job of a NCO.
    This did fit well to one of the requirements for Auftragstaktik (or how that was called at that time); you need to be told and able to understand the mission of your superior (and possibly his superior) - and that requires that you are proficient enough for assuming your direct superior's slot.
    This served well when leader losses (in part because of leading by example / up front) became quite excessive in WW2.

    It's really been done for a century already.

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
  •