How to Think, Not What to Think at Leavenworth

[SteveMetz]

How to Think, Not What to Think at Leavenworth by SWJ Editors.

In my opinion, the main problem isn't that they don't know how to think creatively; it's a system that punishes them for doing so. If the Army wants to change that, the key isn't tinkering with the CGSC curriculum; it's changing the way OERs and promotion boards work.

[slapout9]

Link to article by recently deceased General Wayne Downing on this subject.



http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/e...CUR_DOCUMENT=2

[SWJED]

... for this 1986 blast from the past. Good reading.

[Merv Benson]

Sometimes just asking the right questions can make a big difference in the effectiveness of our forces.

[Tom Odom]

In my opinion, the main problem isn't that they don't know how to think creatively; it's a system that punishes them for doing so. If the Army wants to change that, the key isn't tinkering with the CGSC curriculum; it's changing the way OERs and promotion boards work.

Agreed 100%. What was carefully built as the spriit of the AAR has over time remorphed into the CYAr. Those who follow the former get punished heavily under the latter. Neither bad news nor the messenger who brought it is welcome.

Tom

[marct]

In my opinion, the main problem isn't that they don't know how to think creatively; it's a system that punishes them for doing so. If the Army wants to change that, the key isn't tinkering with the CGSC curriculum; it's changing the way OERs and promotion boards work.

Agreed 100%. What was carefully built as the spriit of the AAR has over time remorphed into the CYAr. Those who follow the former get punished heavily under the latter. Neither bad news nor the messenger who brought it is welcome.

I think that's certainly part of the problem, but I suspect that there is a more serious problem underlying it, namely the fact that the entire training system is predicated on following doctrine. One of the reasons I really like FM 3-24 is that it integrates thinking outside the box as doctrine. It might be a useful exercise to literally go back to basics and try to figure out what situations have what "degrees of freedom" (to misuse a statistical term).

[SteveMetz]

namely the fact that the entire training system is predicated on following doctrine.

That might be true of training, but not of education. I've been in the professional military educational system for over twenty years and I've never seen it portrayed as the unthinking application of doctrine.

[Dr Jack]

From "The Leavenworth Staff College: A Historical Overview" by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel, Military Review 77(5), September-October 1997:

The Leavenworth methodology for teaching problem-solving skills has remained constant since the 1890s when Swift introduced an educational technique known as the applicatory method, under which lecture, recitation and memorization gave way to hands-on exercises in analytical problem solving such as map exercises, war games and staff rides-all designed to teach students how to think, not what to think...

[selil]

From "The Leavenworth Staff College: A Historical Overview" by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel, Military Review 77(5), September-October 1997:

It is the difference between computational science and computer technology. Technology is about tools and the application of knowledge rather than the discussion of knowledge.

[Dr Jack]

From "Preparing Field Grade Leaders for Today and Tomorrow" by BG Volney J. Warner and LTC (Ret) James H. Willbanks, Ph.D., Military Review, January-February 2006:

A New Philosophy
To deal with the complexities and challenges of post-Cold War full-spectrum operations, CGSC has changed its educational philosophy. The institution has adjusted its approach from training students what to think to focus more on teaching students how to think. This approach emphasizes critical reasoning; creative thinking; complex problem solving; service and joint, interagency, and multinational competence; transformation; cultural awareness; and regional expertise.

Since the 1890s (as indicated by Dr. Gabel's article), CGSC changed its focus from "what to think to how to think." It doesn't hurt to remind CGSC of the focus, but the concept is certainly not new to CGSC...