Initial Officer Selection

[jpk]

Having just finished Army OCS I can say the initial selection was non existent. I went before a board of three Officers, they asked a few trivial questions. Basically tried to make sure I was not completely incompetent. About 25% of the candidates is OCS were garbage (many did not make it through). So I do not give much to the initial selection.
The worst part of the initial selection was the one year wait to get into OCS. Frankly, many highly qualified future Officers were dissuaded by the long wait.
There are no group activities until OCS.

[JMA]

Having just finished Army OCS I can say the initial selection was non existent. I went before a board of three Officers, they asked a few trivial questions. Basically tried to make sure I was not completely incompetent. About 25% of the candidates is OCS were garbage (many did not make it through). So I do not give much to the initial selection.
The worst part of the initial selection was the one year wait to get into OCS. Frankly, many highly qualified future Officers were dissuaded by the long wait.
There are no group activities until OCS.

Thank you for the response. If I may ask a question or two (assuming you to be a 'young' officer with the training fresh in your mind).

One, (in the military context) do you believe (or were you taught to believe) that leadership can be taught (off a zero base if necessary) or that those with 'natural' leadership ability routinely demonstrate this skill by the age of officer selection (18-22) which can be honed and developed but not taught?

Two, cadets learn to assess each other pretty well during an Officer Cadet Course and know who the 'no-hoper's' are. Do you consider it fair to to such individuals to let them start a course only to be failed after months of sweat and toil (and humiliation)? And does their presence on the course distract the other course members?

[JMA]

From YouTube we get these clips on:

ASOB - Briefing

ASOB - Main Board

[SethB]

Army OCS assumes that Officership can be taught on the fly, sometime after OCS. There is a minimal amount of selection.

They go through the right steps, but they provide no quality control.

There are teamwork exercises, but people that fail them and prove themselves unable to either lead or follow routinely graduate.

I still believe that OCS ought to be selection based, where qualified, board selected candidates are evaluated in a modified SFAS setting and judged on (primarily) integrity, flexibility and determination.

The current setup is a watered down, 12 week USMA, which is not surprising considering that the men that started it were VMI/USMA sourced Officers, and it hasn't changed as much since 1941 as one might hope.

Just my opinion, as a grad.

[Fuchs]

The best wartime recruiting scheme is imo to approach proved NCOs who showed the necessary potential.

The best peacetime recruiting scheme is imo still to be attractive for a far too large quantity of applicants and then be able to pick the most promising ones in an assessment centre approach (btw, the latter was pioneered by the Prussian army pre-WWI).


The situation as of now seems to be that
* we apply peacetime mechanisms because we're 'not enough' at war for a real wartime mode
and
* we fail to attract enough applicants for a well-done peacetime mechanism.

This "we" means "just about every country on earth".



IIRC even wartime officer courses of the Wehrmacht (can't vouch for this) required to dismiss 40% of those who attended the course back to their NCO life.

[JMA]

The best wartime recruiting scheme is imo to approach proved NCOs who showed the necessary potential.

If one assumes that the value of direct entry officers (which I do) is that you get to produce experienced senior officers young enough to actively and energetically command brigades/divisions/corps/armies. The platoon/company command phase is merely an 'apprenticeship' to gain the operational insight and experience required for higher command.

To keep this in mind one has to work backwards from the estimated number of generals an army needs to figure out how many 'quality' officers one needs to commission every year.

By all means make up the numbers of the up to field officer ranks from NCOs who may be of an age which may limit them to say a maximum of Lt Col. But be wary of denuding the NCO structures of the quality that makes them the backbone of the army as a result.

My position has always been that an army does not need lieutenants to command platoons (senior sergeants have done that before) but lieutenants who have aspirations of higher command need to gain the experience of commanding a platoon (preferably in combat) for as long as possible.

Yes I accept that during wartime many things change as the attrition rates demand rapid replacements... but something as got to give... and that is normally quality.

The best peacetime recruiting scheme is imo still to be attractive for a far too large quantity of applicants and then be able to pick the most promising ones in an assessment centre approach (btw, the latter was pioneered by the Prussian army pre-WWI).

Can you explain what you mean by "an assessment centre approach".

The situation as of now seems to be that
* we apply peacetime mechanisms because we're 'not enough' at war for a real wartime mode
and
* we fail to attract enough applicants for a well-done peacetime mechanism.

This "we" means "just about every country on earth".

The selection process is not IMHO dependent upon war or peace. Length of training probably does though.

In addition, I am still not sure why there is a need for a degree before commissioning when there is plenty of time in a 25-30 year career to take three or so years for the purpose (around the senior Capt/Maj level for the infantry). Too much time and money (again IMHO) is invested in training of officers the majority of whom (it seems) will leave the service before they have justified the initial expense.

IIRC even wartime officer courses of the Wehrmacht (can't vouch for this) required to dismiss 40% of those who attended the course back to their NCO life.

Yes, that is how it worked in Rhodesia despite having used the Brit AOSB system which I say is an indictment of either the AOSB system or how it was run there back then. The Brit approach (as I understand it) is that passing the AOSB virtually assures one of a commission as the onus passes to the course instructors to 'develop' the cadets over the period of the course. Not sure that is the best way either.

IMHO those that pass the AOSB should get commissioned but for the reason that the AOSB selection mechanisms are accurate and as a result the cadet is worthy of a commission in the end.

[Fuchs]

Assessment centre approach means to keep them busy, challenged and under observation for a long enough time (days) that they cannot fake qualities that they don't possess.