Topic: Taking plq course

[dangerboy]

...combine that with the "no fail" policies...

I agree with most of what you are saying but not with your "no fail" policies.  I have ran many courses and we have no problem failing people.  The problem I have seen is sometimes we get non-permanent staff and they do not have the experience so don't know what to look for when they are assessing so end up not noticing mistakes.  Happens a lot in the defensive, or the other problem is when you have lazy staff that don't want to do paperwork.  If you fail a candidate it requires more paperwork than if you pass him, so some staff have passed them with low marks instead of failing them so they can relax earlier. 

[Ham Sandwich]

While MCpl is a substantial leap in a career, it is still a phase of assessment for the unit. And while there are lots of PLQ spots to fill, the spots for Sgt and WO course candidates are slim and dear. So while a person may squeek through and be a mediocre MCpl, their chance of progressing will pretty well end there. The units will not waste those valued one or two spots a year on people that can't progress with their rank.

In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.

[recceguy]

In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.

If you see that happening, it's not the fault of the Army. It's the fault of your Unit and it's CoC. We will no fill before we send someone that's not suited. Simple as that.

[Ham Sandwich]

I agree with most of what you are saying but not with your "no fail" policies.  I have ran many courses and we have no problem failing people.  The problem I have seen is sometimes we get non-permanent staff and they do not have the experience so don't know what to look for when they are assessing so end up not noticing mistakes.  Happens a lot in the defensive, or the other problem is when you have lazy staff that don't want to do paperwork.  If you fail a candidate it requires more paperwork than if you pass him, so some staff have passed them with low marks instead of failing them so they can relax earlier.

Ok, well that's your experience, but i can tell you, for absolute certainty, that "no fail" policies have existed in LFCATC. Instructors were told that if a candidate failed, then it was a leadership failure, and you failed to "mentor" that individual through the item he was having difficulty with, and therefore the candidate wasn't culpable. We were told that if, for example, he failed to state the mission statement in orders, then he was to be "mentored" until he got it, and then carry on (i'm not making this up). They literally did not let us fail anyone. Any failure of a candidate on any item was to be corrected on the spot before the assessment continued. There was even one case where the OC took an assessment guide from a failed section attack behind closed doors, without the instructor, and arbitrarily moved checkmarks out of the ineffective column into the effective column based on poor handwriting, not enough commentary, "disagreed" with certain points (about a section attack he did not observe).

We were told in no uncertain terms that nobody was to fail. It wasn't even sugar-coated. The only person who didn't pass that course was one individual who failed every attempt at every PO (except his 3rd or 4th attempts where he walked through his hard assessed by the hand by the instructors), and quit by refusing a 4th attempt at his recce patrol, and said to the OC that he'd rather go home, because he didn't want to go to leadership school in the first place - his unit just sent him there, and he didn't know where he was going or what he was doing.

I don't know how it is now, but I'm telling you, a couple summers back, there was a no-fail policy. I was there man!

[edit]
...oh, and then they all got promoted by their units on the grad parade.

[Ham Sandwich]

If you see that happening, it's not the fault of the Army. It's the fault of your Unit and it's CoC. We will no fill before we send someone that's not suited. Simple as that.

You guys will no-fill rather than send the wrong people? See, that's a totally foreign concept to me. Last time i saw anything close to that method was in the late 90's. Ever since then, it's been "Who's available for 13 weeks this summer? You, you and you, congratulations! You're going to be leaders!!"

Glad to hear the problem isn't as systemic as i thought it was.

[recceguy]

You guys will no-fill rather than send the wrong people? See, that's a totally foreign concept to me. Last time i saw anything close to that method was in the late 90's. Ever since then, it's been "Who's available for 13 weeks this summer? You, you and you, congratulations! You're going to be leaders!!"

Glad to hear the problem isn't as systemic as i thought it was.

It also creates a sense of competition and ensures everyone is performing at peak. They know that just because there's a spot, doesn't mean their going. They have to prove they're worth it.

[dangerboy]

recceguy, I wish all units both Reg and Reserve had your units mentality.  I have seen what HAM Sandwich stated, candidates showing up for courses just because they needed a class B job for a couple of months.  It usually does not end up good for the candidate.

[Thucydides]

While they may have backed off on the "No Fail" policy, the idea of mentorship is still alive and kicking. I have no problems mentoring people who are trying hard but just don't quite get it, but after two attempts at a PO it should be clear the candidate is either not capable or not trying.

Removing a candidate from a course is quite difficult, the amount of paperwork is huge and the process is quite involved. The course staff all know what is involved in removing a candidate who is unsuitable, and my experience is they will bust their butts to ensure the paperwork and supporting documentation is done as well as possible. Far better to put in the extra hours in keeping the files current for everyone (and thus having ammunition ready when needed) than having to put in the extra time to re teach the failed candidate for another crack at the PO.

[Eye In The Sky]

While the army has it's requirements, you need to do what's correct for you. You have to decide, do you want to be the guy who was in only 3 years before he reached MCpl, and then be a weak NCO for a number of years? Or do you think you could hack it and would make a novice but solid Jr NCO?

I am not sure what you are saying here or what you mean, but you DO know Cpl's AND MCpl's are Junior NCOs right??  And Sgt/PO2 are the only Snr NCOs?

Maybe it was your wording?

[Eye In The Sky]

In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.

So, even though they have passed all their trg to the 6A/6B level, and were promoted, in your eyes they don't meet the standard.  Maybe part of the problem is 'your standard'  The Army standard isn't based off your personal opinion, right?  I don't know about your unit, but I don't know of the Inf School handing out any "gimmies" on the 6A course.  There wasn't any at the Armour School when I did my 6A and the same held true for 6B/ARTC Block 4 and 5 at WATC when I went thru.  In a unit, there are always the "best/favorite/keener" and "lowest standard" pers thought of in each rank, and then all the "middle men" or whatever you want to call them.  Even the people you see as the "lowest standard" still had to meet the min requirements of their course to pass it.  Not everyone is a keener (no, I am not advocating on behalf of the 'min standard crowd', I am not a fan of that mindset either).

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.

Well, if its this bad, hopefully the CofC sees it and makes sure the MCpl is under the watchful eye of some switched-on Sgts and WOs.

I think its important to be aware of the fact that MCpl is not a be all/know all position.  So while not wanting to badmouth the appointment of MCpl, I think its also important to remember where they fit in the big scheme of things.

1 Sgt can mentor and train every MCpl that is sent his/her way.  I still think 'bad MCpls' are primarily a leadership issue, they need to be guided and trained at times.  Some don't, sure, but some do and that hasn't and won't change at all.

[ObedientiaZelum]

While they may have backed off on the "No Fail" policy, the idea of mentorship is still alive and kicking. I have no problems mentoring people who are trying hard but just don't quite get it, but after two attempts at a PO it should be clear the candidate is either not capable or not trying.

I was really turned off to instructing on a PLQ course after my section commander handed me my defensive assessment.  I had points taken off for incorrect things (ie..lost points for not showing up 10 minutes early to orders, I actually showed up 15 minutes early, was the first one there and the staff showed up 5 minutes late).
My section commander wasn't even in the field during my assessment period it was my 2IC who was there and I know for a fact they didn't speak to each other when they switched being in the field. 
Both also couldn't be bothered to take notes, I guess they just "remembered" all the points.

I'm glad they are getting rid of the "everyone passes" crap. On my course out of 40 the only one who "failed" was an over weight soldier who was already a master corporal, he just needed some check on the box to keep his rank. He didn't like the PT after day 2 so he quit.