|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Boot Camp Forum Moderator |
I read in the Army Times this week that the requirements for OCS have changed. It now requires a Bahelors degree instead of the 90 college hours previously.
Apparently, the OCS lieutenants were having trouble completing their degrees in time to meet the requirement for promotion to captain. |
||
|
Member |
I think it is probably a good idea, what do you think Erik?
|
|||
|
Minister of Funk |
I think it's a good idea for AD. The requirement for NG is still 90hrs though, which I think is fair given the part-time status that allows time to finish a degree.
________________________________________________________________________________ "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
OK I know I'm an old guy but I'll weigh in with a comment on this item... IMO, they should start restricting what Degrees are acceptable as well for AD. Bachelors of Arts in Phy Ed should be off the list, IMO. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I might be wrong on this but I didn't think NG commissions got their Federal recognition until they completed the BS/BA degree anyways. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Why, the Army can always use more gym teachers can't they? |
|||
|
"Lord, Beer me strength!" |
Negative. I'm a NG 2LT with 1 semester left (which I'm knocking out before IOBC). I'm getting my FedRec anyways. We have something like 4 years, they say, to earn our BS. As far as degrees that should be required, I'm not so sure. I've spent 6 years in the Guard, all infantry, including a NATO deployment. My degree is in Elementary Education with a focus on English Second Language instruction. I'm still qualified, in my and the Army's opinion, to lead troops. It's not the civilian degree that makes the officer. It's the training and experiences that do. The college degree just means we're teachable and have made the effort, and are (hopefully) not morons. Insert 2LT moron jokes here. This is just my 2 cents, though. I know I'm not going to convince anyone of anything different. Kids in the back seat cause accidents; Accidents in the back seat cause kids.  |
|||
|
"Never Quit!" |
I think it's a good idea. All the other services require a Bachelors Degree for a commission.
From what I've been told regarding the value of a degree in the Army, a four-year degree means that the person has put the time and dedication into completing a long-term goal. This requirement puts the Army onto the same footing as the other services. 20 years ago, Army Officers had to have their degree just to be considered for promotion beyond Captain. My Dad went to night school to complete his college degree in order to be considered for Colonel. Unfortunately for him (and the other 89% of eligible LTCs) that year, he got passed over. Sometime between then and now the degree requirement changed, and now it's changing back. History is cyclical. Matt SPC, AV US Army OCS Selectee Class 303-10 |
|||
|
|
"Lord, Beer me strength!" |
To clarify, I was NOT implying that degrees should not be mandatory. I was trying to assert that the field in which the degree is earned is irrellevant. I don't care if Johnny Hooah has a degree in home ec with a minor in navel lint, so long as he commissioned through an approved source and has passed all of his training and is learning what he needs to.
Kids in the back seat cause accidents; Accidents in the back seat cause kids. |
|||
|
|
Boot Camp Forum Moderator |
I'm not sure if I like this or not. I understand the difficulties in completing degrees in today's Army. I liked OCS as a non-traditional way to obtain officers with militry experience.
Perhaps the Army should be looking at some sort of program to assist these OCS commissioned officers to complete their degree. I recall a few years ago reading about a program where the Army would send field grade officers to school for a Masters Degree in military related fields. Perhaps something similar for Lieutenants ? With that, we could direct what type of degree they obtain, somthing with direct military applications. |
|||
|
|
Member |
While I agree that a degree should be required, I'm not sure by regulation certain degrees should be restricted. For one it should be a combination of more than just degrees. Also if it gets to the point where the Army can be that picky, I could maybe see giving certain degrees more weight. But restricting certain degree across the board, would deny the Army the ability to commission good officers. Their college degree is just a small part of the overall mix. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
My problem isn't necessarily being elitist with college studies at least I don't think so.
OK so I won't go too far into the latest example that took place in our Hot Topics section about a year ago because it will probably anger more but it was a 1st LT that could not spell the word "Private" in I think it was like 7, 10 or 15 seperate posts (I counted them in disbelief, don't remember the tally though)....thats pretty basic and it's an Army rank. The grammar sucked royally as well. Now granted he could have been a poser, which is very possible in that Forum. I also use bad grammer and misspell as well but this was really bad. The other area here with degree fields is what do you tell a SSG that has a Engineering degree that he gets the same promo points and same opportunity as a Officer that scamed through college with a major in "Womens Studies". It is just NOT the same level of effort. I mean C'mon, we've all run into these fields of study at some point. I think the Army needs to tighten the screws there somewhat. Not something I am going to push as a Veteran because I am not serving now. Really up to the generation thats serving currently, IMO. I do think it is raising the bar more to the next level. Civilian Employers a long time ago started to discriminate based on some of these degrees. Fact is that "Womens Studies" or "Phy Ed" limits you to very narrow career fields. Should be that way in the Army as well, IMO. It's true if I am 11 series, all I really care about are the Army schools and potentially the Ranger tab....I felt that way as well However, think of how many of the Officers that make it through Ranger school have a degree in something stupid or not mainstream? Haven't run into any myself. Most of them are fairly intelligent and the Officer training weeds a lot of the dumb azzes out prior to Ranger School (so I agree partly on what Pharoah says). However, why spend the money on the Recruiting, the slot or training in the first place when the college degree is a neon sign in a lot of cases prior to enlistment? Why not lower the wash out rate and improve the competitive challenge of the Officer Training? Just my opinion. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I have to disagree with you Erich. I don't think people should be awarded more points for their type of degree nor do I think there should be restrictions on a type of degree. I have seen Engineer majors who were horrible at grammer/spelling. I have seen literature majors who were horrible at math. So while not being able to spell private correctly would concern me as well I think that would be an extreme case. Also I chose my major based on what I wanted to do with my life once I was finished with my military career. Anything could happen to me medically at anytime that may cause me to be discharged from the military so I want to be able to use my college education to pursue another career that I'll enjoy. So if my interest lay in "Women's studies" I shouldn't be penalized because I wasn't interested in a technical field such as engineering. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Your penalized today for that choice in the Civilian world via Salary, Opportunity and job openings.......are you not? Why should the Army look at the degree any differently? Why say we'll take you with any Degree for any Officer Branch. Thats NOT the case now, the Army already restricts for Legal and Medical. All I am saying is expand on what they have already restricted and narrow the choices down some more. Make it more akin to the Civilian world. I don't see the unrestricted system now as a big problem for Combat Arms units but in some cases and in some areas it is (it's never been looked at because there has always been a shortage in Combat Arms of some sort in the Officer area). I suspect it is a bigger issue for some of the Support branches though and that is where they should tighten up first, IMO. |
|||
|
|
"Lord, Beer me strength!" |
Not that it's perfect, but that's what BOLC/OBC is for. My best (and only real favorite) officer I had coming up was an internal design or fashion major. He was an awesome IN PL. I knew college ball players and criminal justice majors who couldn't lead a turtle out of its shell if his life depended on it. There are extremes on both ends. In my opinion, if it's not broke (and it isn't really, Army wide), don't fix it. Leave the "Good Idea Fairy" to the majors and above... Kids in the back seat cause accidents; Accidents in the back seat cause kids. |
|||
|
Member |
I agree with Eric that the type of degree should count for somthing or should be removed from the prerequisits for anything but Doctors.
Its not a magic scroll that bestows its bearer with superhuman abilities. The difficulty in achiving the type of degree speaks volumes into the amount of effort and aptitude a person has to invest to attain it. If no civilian degree program track matches the aptitudes the Army needs, why use it as a standard at all ? Officers with the exception of Doctors and Pilots are not the technical experts in thier fields, their Warrant Officers and Senior NCOs hold those positions. I say that the system should be revised to align with civilian standards as thats source of its inputs as well as what its designed to perpetuate. Groupthink is a bad thing, you become isolated from relevancy pretty quickly. While we're tossing rocks, let me drag the service academy glass houses into this hairball. 300K per graduate verses 130K per ROTC gaduate ? Rigor of instruction where the faculty credentialed on par with a community college ? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
In women's studies you may be penalized via salary or job opportunity. Why should that be the case in the Army?
When I was in the Air Force as a crew chief some of the best pilots were criminal justice majors. Now that I am in the Army the best company commander in my state (Opinion) is a general studies major. Having a specific type of degree does not equate to doing well in a particular job as an officer. Nor does it mean you won't do well either. Not to mention that you are liable to lose officers by doing this. I know quite a few engineer majors who joined the Guard/Active military because they wanted to experience something different before they settled down in that career field. One of the allures of the military is possibly being able to do things you could never do in civilian life. So some people wouldn't like the prospect of being cornered into a few officer slots based on their major. I know I wouldn't. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Yeah, I saw that earlier with the accreditation link on West Points first page. I didn't want to rock the boat too much in this thread though.  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I think because there is a little more at stake at the Entry Level in the Armed Forces then in the Civilian workplace for starters. So why would we accept a higher standard for the Civilian side and not the Army side?
Thats true but at the same time those wander the MOS catalog folks leave and don't make it a career in most cases. So isn't that retention part....supporting my argument? As far as losing Officers, I think it would be more of a shift to quality versus a drain on the Officer Corps. I think you'll find if the bar is raised more. More inside would see the path as a personal betterment then just higher pay with perks. Ever work at a Company with stupid people? You really aren't challenged and the learning is less. The smart people tend to not work as hard because they don't have to because when comparing with their peers, the bar isn't set very high. They are not challenged. This is my contention with some of what is going on in the Regular Army. They have the move-up or move-out working pretty well, which is great........there was a LOT of screaming about that in the 1980's when it was implemented. All I am saying is raise the bar a little more. If it doesn't work they can back off. I think it will work though. I don't think it will actually happen because the Army really fears dramatic change and avoids it in favor of incrementalism, I was just throwing it out there. It would be interesting though. |
|||
|
|
Minister of Funk |
I would argue that limiting OCS attendance to certain degrees would only serve to alienate otherwise qualified applicants rather than weed out sub-par ones.
I'll post myself as an example: Bachelor of Fine Arts in Theatre. I went through college with the intent of pursing an acting and/or directing career. Four years after I graduated I joined the Army, served briefly as an Enlisted 13F, then went to OCS where I am now branched Aviation about to fly Blackhawks. At this point I'm planning to make a career out of this. I'll not comment on my quality as an officer as my carrer is young, but I was obviously qualified enough to become an Aviator... all with my otherwise "worthless" Fine Arts degree. It's not the subject of study that makes a person a good Officer Candidate, it's the person themselves. ________________________________________________________________________________ "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
