Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | A | Academic Exchange Quarterly

The war college experience.

Article Excerpt
Abstract

The purpose of character development in the military officer corps is to produce a leader who can be trusted to bear arms in the name, and in the defense, of the democracy. Character development is the focus of Officer Professional Military Education, a process that ranges from pre-commissioning (undergraduate) to graduate level education at the War Colleges. War College students are talented, experienced adults and demanding, interesting students. They have as much to learn from each other as they do from the curriculum or the professors. They expect professors to be energized, and the curriculum to be relevant; they are quick to recognize fluff. This all has an impact on how they learn, how we should teach, how we select and develop faculty, and how we assign faculty responsibilities for curriculum development and research.

**********

The doctor, the lawyer, and the Indian chief go to graduate school--and they are all in your seminar. I am writing this article out of a passion for teaching. What is offered here is based entirely on practical experience in the arena of officer professional military education. Because I have no formal grounding in theories of "education," it is possible that what is presented in this piece cannot be generalized. However, I expect there are a few parallels in executive development, adult education, and perhaps professional graduate schools. In any case I appreciate the opportunity to write down these opinions and to hear back from those who read this article--whether they consider it drivel, dubious, or useful discourse.

The students. War College students are talented, experienced adults and demanding, interesting students. These are not "normal" graduate students in search of a career. These are mid-career high-performers, who have been carefully selected to spend a year in residence. [1]

War College students have between 17-24 years of active duty military service; many have commanded large organizations, a high-percentage come from staff positions in Washington, DC. A substantial number have been stationed overseas. Some come directly from Afghanistan or Iraq. All have Bachelor degrees, most have Masters, and a few have doctorate or professional degrees. They are competitively selected; promotion rates among these students are extraordinarily high. They attend alongside an equally well-qualified and upwardly mobile group of international officers. They arrive enthusiastic and ready to solve problems. They are quick to distinguish between what is useful and what is fluff. They expect to benefit from their academic year, and they expect their talents to be recognized and exploited. This all has an impact on how they learn, how we should teach, how we select and develop faculty, and faculty responsibilities for curriculum development and research.

How they learn. War College students already know a great deal; they often assume they know even more. Whatever new information the professor or the curriculum offers will be tested and tempered against the students' base of experience.

I was taught in a traditional sequence: theory-history-application. Theory to understand new concepts, history to appreciate how the theory had been applied, then application, to test the theory, in light of history, on a greatly simplified problem. That approach will get your arm chewed off at a War College.

War College students believe they are ready to solve the problem the moment they walk in the door. They are impatient with "theory" and don't trust history. They want the problem--now. So begin with a problem that stretches their capabilities, and let them flail. As flailing becomes failing, offer up theory to get them back on track. At some point, sometimes after they have hosed up the exercise completely, one of them will sheepishly ask: Has anybody else ever done this before? Then give them some history--it will make them feel better knowing they are in good company. Talented, experienced adults are aggressively impatient. They demand proof of relevance. The best method of proof is not to "show them" but to have them convince themselves. The roadmap is application-theory-history, offered in a seminar environment, through real-world cases, accompanied by active student participation in both the learning and teaching processes.

The learning environment. War College students already know a great deal; as often as not, and on any given topic, at least one of them will know more than the professor. If you allow it, they can teach you a lot.

I was teaching a class on technology and military force structure and the plan was to examine the concepts of "technology pull" and "requirements push" through a case on Precision Guided Munitions. I knew where the discussions would go and I was "in charge" of the classroom. A student interrupted with a dialogue on the Airborne Laser Laboratory (ABL)--a subject about which I knew little, but a system for which he had been the project officer for the last 16 years. The classroom went electric as he described how engineering decisions ran up against budget and political obstacles; how leadership challenges were played out with contractors, engineers, and in-house physicists; and how the technology of ABL ran against the culture of the Air Force. Others chimed in with their experiences--operationally, in test programs, in the Pentagon, or elsewhere in the research and development field. Along the way, we tossed out the terms "technology pull" and "requirements push" as irrelevant because these expressions didn't add anything to the group's understanding of the problem of moving "technology" out of the laboratory and into a weapons system.

That was a watershed experience. Over time I came to appreciate...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!