The Report of Commission of Governance of Canada’s military colleges
I finally got around to studying the report you sent on April 10 and collecting some thoughts on the subject. (Maybe the written report has a glossary; one certainly needs one to sort out the alphabet soup used). It seems to me that the crux of the discussion is given on page 7 where the 4 pillars of RMCC are listed: “(academic, military, bilingualism, athletics) but the primary mission of RMCC is to educate/qualify officers to a university degree academic standard.”
I had understood that the primary mission of RMCC was to train officers to lead the Canadian Forces. While it is advantageous to an individual to gain a free academic degree; does this produce better leaders or is just nice to have when one leaves the service? Surely the military mission should take precedence. This was the reason RMCC was established.
As I wrote some years ago: “From what one hears today. the College is being turned into a Forces Educational Centre and seems to exist for itself as an institution – like any other university. One Questions if cadet training and advanced courses are compatible in the same institution.”
If the academic side is the primary mission, what is the point of the college? Surely, it would be more cost effective to attach a military faculty to an established university with an high academic standard. How long will it be before someone in government asks what is the point of maintaining this expensive institution?
3383 Bill Atwood