[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-74]
THINKERS AND PRACTITIONERS: DO SENIOR PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION
SCHOOLS PRODUCE STRATEGISTS?
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 4, 2009
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-766 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JIM COOPER, Tennessee CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
GLENN NYE, Virginia DUNCAN HUNTER, California
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Lorry Fenner, Professional Staff Member
Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Trey Howard, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, June 4, 2009, Thinkers and Practitioners: Do Senior
Professional Military Education Schools Produce Strategists?... 1
Appendix:
Thursday, June 4, 2009........................................... 33
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
THINKERS AND PRACTITIONERS: DO SENIOR PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION
SCHOOLS PRODUCE STRATEGISTS?
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 3
Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman,
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee...................... 1
Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.............. 2
WITNESSES
Belcher, Col. Michael F., USMC, Director, Marine Corps War
College........................................................ 15
Forsyth, Maj. Gen. Maurice H. ``Maury,'' USAF, Commander, Spaatz
Center for Officer Education, and Commandant, Air War College.. 13
Hall, Rear Adm. Garry E., USN, Commandant, The Industrial College
of the Armed Forces............................................ 5
Steel, Maj. Gen. Robert P., USAF, Commandant, The National War
College........................................................ 7
Williams, Maj. Gen. Robert M., USA, Commandant, U.S. Army War
College........................................................ 10
Wisecup, Rear Adm. James P., USN, President, U.S. Naval War
College........................................................ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Belcher, Col. Michael F...................................... 149
Forsyth, Maj. Gen. Maurice H. ``Maury''...................... 140
Hall, Rear Adm. Garry E...................................... 41
Snyder, Hon. Vic............................................. 37
Steel, Maj. Gen. Robert P.................................... 69
Williams, Maj. Gen. Robert M................................. 120
Wisecup, Rear Adm. James P................................... 89
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Dr. Snyder................................................... 165
THINKERS AND PRACTITIONERS: DO SENIOR PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION
SCHOOLS PRODUCE STRATEGISTS?
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, June 4, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Dr. Snyder. Good morning. We are going to go ahead and
begin. Mr. Wittman will be joining us shortly.
This is the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations'
second hearing on professional military education (PME);
specifically today, officer-in-residence PME.
On May 20th, outside witnesses discussed the 1986
Goldwater-Nichols Act that reformed our military by
institutionalizing what we call ``jointness.'' We also
discussed the efforts of the 1989 Skelton Panel to review PME
to ensure that jointness became part of the military's culture
through its officer education system.
Today we are looking at the six senior schools in the PME
enterprise: the war colleges and the Industrial College of the
Armed Forces (ICAF). These schools are meant to focus on
developing strategists and teaching strategy--national,
military, and resource.
In later hearings we will hear from the commandants and the
deans of the intermediate and ``career'' schools. And we will
also invite the combatant commanders to appear, those who
employ the graduates of these institutions; they should also be
involved in these discussions.
Today our panel is the senior leadership of the senior PME
schools, including their commandants, commanders, directors, or
in some cases presidents, and they are joined by their academic
deans.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
Dr. Snyder. We will now hear from Mr. Wittman.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA,
RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Chairman Snyder. I appreciate the
opportunity.
And good morning to our witnesses. We deeply appreciate
your being here today and your service to our Nation.
Our opening hearing on officer professional in-residence
education featured outside experts who offered a range of
thoughtful suggestions. While it is always useful to hear
suggestions from intelligent observers unbound by current
operations, we must also learn from those faced with the day-
to-day reality of managing our professional military education
system.
We have such people here today, the commandants of the
military service and joint senior war colleges. These
institutions are the top of the PME system. Each of our
witnesses has had a unique career path. Even so, the road to
your positions lies predominantly with operational assignments
rather than academic posts.
That successful officers come from the operational part of
their respective services is no surprise, but I wonder how each
of you adjusts to the particular challenges of running an
academic institution where faculty cherish the right to
exercise academic freedom and students are encouraged to think
creatively. In short, do the witnesses believe their careers
prepared them to be nurturing educators?
I am also interested in your suggestions on recruiting and
retaining the best faculty. Do you have the tools you need to
recruit and retain the high-quality faculty teaching the fine
students the military services send as students? Can you offer
an academic environment attractive to the high-caliber faculty
we seek at your institutions?
Finally, I have to ask if the military services are sending
the best students to our military senior service colleges. The
military services each have their own unique service culture,
and part of that culture is the view of the value of
professional military education. Is that culture reflected in
the quality of students?
The Department's consortium of senior military professional
educational institutions is a distinguished collection of
academic excellence in all aspects of national security,
diplomacy, and strategy. We provide experienced, talented
military officers a year to read and think at taxpayers'
expense at these fine schools. Is the investment worth it to
them and to the Nation? I believe it is, but would like to get
your thoughts on the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
We are pleased to be joined again by our full committee
chairman, Ike Skelton, formerly the chairman of the Skelton
panel from the late eighties.
And he has already broken our microphone. This happens all
the time. Mr. Skelton, I am going to hold forth for about an
hour. We could use this old book to prop it up with--Ike
Skelton's book.
Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wittman. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to sit in on this hearing. I
want to compliment Dr. Snyder and the Ranking Member on holding
hearings on this subject, which, as you may know, is near and
dear to me through the years.
A bit of history. Back in 1982 Richard White, a member of
the Armed Services Committee, held a series of hearings in his
subcommittee--which was the predecessor of this subcommittee--
on what David Jones, Air Force Chief of Staff and later
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said publicly: that the
Joint Chiefs of Staff gives pabulum advice, and was very
critical of it.
Needless to say he became a pariah among the military folks
in the Pentagon; but, sadly, he was very, very right. After
Richard White did the hearings, he retired. And Arch Barrett,
who is one of those rare staff members that should be
emblazoned in stone because he was so good at what he did here,
convinced me to get involved with this same issue and
introduced legislation to abolish the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
which none of them handled very well.
After passing legislation three times in the House over
four years, the chairmanship in the Senate changed from John
Tower to Barry Goldwater and Barry Goldwater to Sam Nunn--who
had their own legislation--and we ended up in conference
passing later the Goldwater-Nichols Act which was not well-
received among most of the officers of all services, with few
exceptions like Bernard Trane and a few others.
Following that, at the behest of Arch Barrett, I chaired a
panel on professional military education that built on
Goldwater-Nichols and working on joint education, and we ended
up with a series of year-long hearings where we came out with a
Phase I, Phase II--you know, all of that--and tried to
reestablish rigor.
We found that the various war colleges varied in complexity
and difficulty. The Marines were way behind and to Al Gray's
credit he turned it around 180 degrees. And the Air Force had a
long way to go and that came around. The Army was good, B or B-
plus, doing pretty well. The best was the Navy, by far, and you
didn't have to go there to get promoted but it was, for some
reason, the premier in 1988.
Well, fast forward to today. Have the war colleges,
including National and ICAF, have they fulfilled their main
purpose in life? And what is the main purpose? Well,
Congressman Snyder mentioned it. It is to create strategists,
strategic thinkers. Everybody that graduates from your school
is not going to be a strategic thinker, but they will
understand it, hopefully. But I also think that there should be
a great deal of rigor. They should study every bit as hard as I
did in law school. And of course being a product of a law
school that did the case method, I think that might not be a
bad idea for battles, campaigns, conflicts to be studied on a
case-by-case basis, and hopefully you do at least some of that.
But I question whether you are turning out, A, the
strategists, and, B, whether they are being recognized and
taken care of and put in the right slots or not. I have a deep
concern about that. I have expressed that at the highest level
within the military. And I hope that those magic people who are
great strategists can be guided by you to the right positions
on staffs and in commands where they can use that strategic
thinking rather than being shunted aside in chagrin and caused
to be discouraged. I have seen instances of this, and needless
to say it bothers me a great deal.
We are and have been blessed throughout the years with
outstanding thinkers, but we have more, and they are not being
utilized as they should be. I think that is up to you to
identify those rare breeds and to make sure that their follow-
on assignments allow them to be encouraged and to make
contributions to best of their abilities.
This is a serious time. These are very serious times, and a
year off with your family at school is not going to do it. Of
course, it is wonderful to have a family at school and to
participate in the activities, but you are trying to turn out
and you should turn out--and then later make sure that they get
the right slots within the military, whether they be joint or
within the service that that they serve. I cannot stress that
any stronger than I am now.
So thank you for your hard work, for your intellectual
abilities, and for your leadership. And, again, let me
compliment you, Dr. Snyder, Mr. Wittman, for this series of
hearings. It is timely and in dire need for our country. Thank
you.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your very
thoughtful comments and all your work through literally the
decades now on these very important subjects to our Nation.
Our witnesses today are Rear Admiral Garry Hall, United
States Navy, Commandant, the Industrial College of the Armed
Forces; Major General Robert Steel, United States Air Force,
Commandant, the National War College; Rear Admiral James
Wisecup, United States Navy, President of the Naval War
College; Major General Robert M. Williams, United States Army,
Commandant, the Army War College; Major General Maury Forsyth,
United States Air Force, Commander of the Spaatz Center and
Commandant of the Air War College; Colonel Michael Belcher,
United States Marine Corps, Director of the Marine Corps War
College.
We will put the timer on you, gentlemen. Your written
statements will be made part of the record. When you see the
red light go on, we are not going to shoot you. You should feel
free to continue your statement if you need to. The challenge
that we have with six of you is we decided we wanted to have
all of you together here. We thought that would be good for all
of us. If you all go 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes, it will
be an hour before we get to any questions. So we hope that you
will stay within the five minutes.
Admiral, we will begin with you and we will go right down
the line. Thank you all for being here, and as I said, your
statements will be part of the record that the staff already
have, as do the members.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. GARRY E. HALL, USN, COMMANDANT, THE
INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE OF THE ARMED FORCES
Admiral Hall. Good morning, Chairman Skelton, Mr. Chairman,
Dr. Snyder, Mr. Wittman, and Dr. Fenner. Thank you very much
for the opportunity to be here today, and based on your opening
statements, I know that you really get it in what we are trying
to accomplish at our schools.
I have been the commandant at the Industrial College of the
Armed Forces for 18 months now, and I have observed 2 classes,
so that is 640 students or fellows, and worked with just under
100 faculty members. And I am extremely proud of the
institution. My written statement, as you said, is part of the
record so I have three takeaways from that statement that I
would like to make.
And the first one is, the point is that ICAF is unique. We
are the only senior service school that teaches economics, and
this translates into an appreciation of resource constraints.
Our students learn to develop a national strategy while
considering the reality of resources. And this was recently
highlighted at our joint land-air-sea simulation held annually
at the Air War College, where the ICAF students were recognized
for their bringing all elements of power to bear: diplomatic,
informational, military, and economic. So they really bring the
soft powers and understand the resources.
Point two I want to make is, Chairman Skelton, you spoke to
Navy flags well before I was appointed to ICAF, and I remember
clearly your statement as saying you want your students to work
as hard as you did in law school, and that resonated with me,
as well as your story about the shoe shine. What is the
difference between a $3 shine and a $5 shine? It's attitude. So
I express both of those comments to each class as they enter
ICAF.
So the second point is ICAF is a challenging and rigorous
academic program. It is not your old generals' ICAF. Many
senior officers say when folks are sent to ICAF, it is only a
lot of reading, if you do it; it is a great time to work on
your handicap. Students show up and find out it is a lot of
reading and you are going to do it, and there is no time to
work on your handicap. So this is not the old-school ICAF. Our
students are graded rigorously based on class contribution; not
participation, but their contribution to class. They are also
graded on in-depth research papers for every one of their
courses they take, and faculty members evaluate all students
through every exercise. This gives us the ability to hand out
an honor graduate award and also to recognize about 12 percent
of our graduates as distinguished graduates based on their
grade point average (GPA) and leadership contributions.
Anecdotally, the Department of Homeland Security's
education officer came in, looked at our curriculum, saw how it
was being presented, and she said it was equal to her Ph.D.
program that she is completing right now. Also, a Stanford
University professor, after examining our curriculum, said we
are perhaps the finest senior executive development course in
the Nation, minus the finance. We teach economics but we don't
teach finance.
Also, during our industry studies in the field trips where
I have participated, I have watched senior executives, after
being interviewed or having discussions with our ICAF students,
say, boy, these guys know more about us than we know about us,
and our folks ask tough questions in a very polite manner. So
there is rigor at ICAF.
Point number three is, we are still true to our charter. As
Bernard Baruch said, he wanted a small school in touch with
industry. We are still true to being in touch with industry but
we are not averse to change or growth. We are constantly
evolving. ICAF provides a relevant education for today's
strategic environment.
And, Chairman Skelton, you always ask or often ask: Can a
graduate have a conversation with General Marshall? Well, I
feel after observing 640 students, as you said, not all of them
are going to be that unique strategic leader, but I think over
90 percent of my graduates not only can have a conversation
with General Marshall but could understand that conversation.
They could politely challenge him, and they could continue to
help him to develop his strategic thought. And then in the end,
they could capture that thought, put it in clear concise
writing, and be able to communicate it to others, something I
think is very important to our commanders.
Again, an example of could they have that conversation? For
the past 15 years we have had the national security strategy
exercise where our students look forward 10 years and create a
national strategy. They then, at the conclusion of 2 weeks of
this exercise, brief out to 60 distinguished visitors (DV) at
the three- and four-star rank in uniform, in industry, and in
government. And again and again, the DV participants say, can
we please come back, these folks are really great. So I do
think we are producing strategic leaders.
So in summary, I am proud to be the commandant. I am
energized by the students. I am inspired by the faculty, and I
am a strong believer that one person can make a difference. So
next week, one week from today, we will graduate 320
individuals, who will immediately go out with the
sophistication needed to operate at the strategic level and
soon be the strategic leader themselves.
An example would be in uniform, General Ann Dunwoody, who
is now the first female four-star in the United States Army; in
government, Dr. Kaminski, who has been a thought leader for
government for decades; in business/industry, Chet Huber is now
the CEO of OnStar; and one of our international Fellows,
Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, is now United Arab Emirates
Ambassador to the United States.
Mr. Snyder, you asked about our preparation for our
commandants. And I would say President Obama used the quote
that ``The life of law is not logic but experience.'' And I
translate that it is the experience that is important to being
a commandant or president of one of these colleges. So it is my
experience operationally that I think makes a difference, gives
a new set of eyes, and it is very easy to operate in an
environment of academic freedom, because that comes down to
moral courage and moral leadership in doing what is right. And
so I feel that I am prepared to be the commandant and I am
proud to be the commandant, and I will be happy to answer any
of your questions.
And also, Chairman Skelton, I do get involved when I see
those unique people with the right energy and intellect to
follow on, to make sure they are placed in the right
environment, or talk to their service. And also, my biggest
concern is more with the government employees who often go back
to their original jobs. So I talk to all leaders that come
through about placement in the next job.
I will be happy to take any further questions. Thank you
very much.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Hall can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
Dr. Snyder. General Steel.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROBERT P. STEEL, USAF, COMMANDANT, THE
NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE
General Steel. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder,
Congressman Wittman, and members of the subcommittee, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to address the education of the
men and women protecting and representing our country.
In my written testimony I addressed my vision for the
National War College, the quality of its faculty, the
composition of its student body, and the rigor of its
curriculum.
I would like to note a few key points from it. It is an
honor and a privilege to serve as commandant of the National
War College. The National War College prepares future
generations of America's top military and civilian leaders
through a course of study that enhances student knowledge of
the national security issues, sharpens their analytical
abilities, and focuses specifically on the successful
formulation and execution of grand strategy. We also stress the
habits, breadth, and depth of mind needed by senior
policymakers and military commanders. Above all, we encourage
students to hone their critical thinking skills.
In my opening remarks I would like to emphasize three
points. First, it is important to recognize and preserve the
unique mission of each war college. Second, National War
College's focus on grand strategy is critical to producing
leaders who can deal with the national security challenges of
today and tomorrow. Third, the leadership and organization of
our senior service colleges are not broken as some would
suggest.
Ensuring Joint PME II (JPME II) at all the war colleges is
important, but it should not detract from the specialized
excellence that each provides. When Chairman Skelton stressed
the criticality of jointness in JPME years ago, he was careful
to ensure that people did not interpret that as one national
uniformed service. He recognized that jointness functioned best
when it synthesized the best each service brought to the table.
While we look for ways to improve JPME, I ask that you
preserve the specific mission that each war college was
chartered to accomplish. For the National War College, it is
the national security strategy mission that must be preserved.
Each of the three critical components of the college--faculty,
student body, and curriculum--has unique joint, combined,
interagency composition. There is no particular service or
agency lens through which problems are viewed. Equally
important, our Washington, D.C., location means we can attract
top non-Department of Defense (DOD) U.S. Government students
and faculty. It also means that our students have tremendous
access to the highest echelons of our three branches of
government, our most renowned think tanks, and the entire
Washington diplomatic corps. With the exception of our sister
college, ICAF, I am aware of no other institution, government
or private, that has these critical assets.
Finally, I challenge those that suggest the leadership and
organization in our senior service colleges are broken. Leading
the college requires the same senior leadership skills required
for any large and complex institution: a dedication to mission,
an ability to integrate the very best that JPME and the
civilian academic world can offer our students, and a vision to
anticipate the challenges of tomorrow.
A commandant must remember that these are hybrid
organizations, a mix of military, civilian government, and
academic environments whose strength flows from their
diversity. I would be concerned by any line of thinking that
fails to take into account our unique strengths. As an
institution, it combines the best of the civilian academic
world with senior government and military expertise. We bring
together the next generation of our country's military and
civilian leaders, along with their international peers, for a
program of study that has the unique capacity of allowing them
to interact intensively with one another over a 10-month period
and come to grips with the key issues that they will confront
as they rise to positions of greater responsibility.
This unique experience is the central added value that PME
institutions like the National War College bring to the
education of our future leaders. It is not replicated in
private sector universities. The critical essential element in
achieving our unique mission is professional diversity.
Diversity in our leadership, in our faculty, in our student
body, and in our curriculum.
While our academic professionals help guide curriculum
development, understand theory, maintain academic rigor, our
professional practitioners bring a sense of operational reality
that can be applied to the theories we teach. Leading these
institutions requires a careful blending, a balance of these
two forms of education where we will find the success that
Chairman Skelton, you and your subcommittee, Chairman Snyder,
and we who lead the schools all seek.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify on a vital national security issue, the education of
our future national security leaders.
[The prepared statement of General Steel can be found in
the Appendix on page 69.]
Dr. Snyder. Admiral Wisecup.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. JAMES P. WISECUP, USN, PRESIDENT, U.S.
NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Admiral Wisecup. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
Snyder, Mr. Wittman, and gentlemen and ladies of the Oversight
and Investigations Committee. I thank you for the opportunity
to speak with you today about professional military education
in our Navy, especially our senior level course, and the work
of the team at the Naval War College in providing career-long
educational opportunities related to the mission of the Navy in
serving the people of this Nation.
The United States Naval War College will celebrate its
125th anniversary in October. From its humble beginnings in the
structure in which had been the Newport poorhouse, the college
has built an international reputation for professional military
education with alumni in nearly every corner of the globe. Our
founder, Rear Admiral Stephen B. Luce, set a true course for
educational success by choosing an approach based on focus and
holistic study of war, its prevention, and the statesmanship
involved with both. He envisioned active learning by students
and faculty on seminal strategic issues in a collegial
environment. One hundred and twenty-five years later, those
traditions remain at the center of the college's approach to
education.
We carefully apply a very wide aperture of perspectives,
disciplines, and cultures to the study of war and its
prevention. We continue to seek to prepare our senior level
students for the challenges and responsibilities of higher
command and staff in an uncertain, ambiguous, and often
surprising world. We aim to help prepare them for strategic
level leadership, not simply their next duty station. We do
that principally by inculcating in them disciplined habits of
thought through a strategic-level lens and by helping them hone
their ability to critically think and write about the
associated complex issues.
We are confident our approach, which highlights an
executive perspective in a seminar-centered environment
requiring an appreciation of alternative viewpoints and the
synthesis of complex ideas using multidisciplinary tools, is
precisely on target. We expect application of principles to
case studies of real events and issues and require our students
to provide written analysis of complex, open-ended issues.
Grading clearly sustains the academic rigor. Through such
endeavors we believe we can well judge if our students are
achieving the required educational outcomes.
The College of Naval Warfare is a 10-month senior level PME
program with JPME Phase II designed to produce broadly educated
leaders who possess a strategic perspective underpinned by key
analytical frameworks. Graduates will be able to apply
disciplined strategic-minded critical thinking to challenges in
the multiservice, multiagency, and multinational environments.
About 20 percent of our student body is made up of
international officers hand-picked by their services. Students
study three 13-week courses in our core academic program. The
strategy and policy course focuses on educating students to
think strategically; to develop a disciplined critical approach
to strategic analysis; to understand the fundamentals of
military strategy, national policy, and the interrelationships
between them; to appreciate the political uses of military
power; and to become familiar with the roles of both military
and political leaders in policy formulation, military planning,
and the conduct of war and peace.
The national security decision-making course aims to
prepare our officer and government students to successfully
lead change in large complex organizations poised to meet
national security challenges in an uncertain international
security environment.
The joint military operations course refines military
officers' critical and creative thinking skills under the
umbrella of military problem-solving, especially the ability to
evaluate a range of potential solutions to ill-structured
problems and to function in volatile, uncertain, complex, and
ambiguous environments.
These courses, along with three elective courses
complemented by two conferences and a speaker's program, form
this framework for examination of national security and
strategic studies.
Over the last two decades, our educational approach and
methodology has stayed on course. However, much else has
changed.
First, we have implemented the recommendation by the Panel
on Military Education of the 100th Congress. Today we have
distinct curricula for our senior- and intermediate-level
courses. They are discrete courses with differing focuses and
outcomes. Since we have a single faculty to teach both levels,
I am confident the distinction will remain and that these
courses will complement each other very well over the longer
term. As our recent JPME certification showed, though this
places a greater workload on our distinguished faculty, they
have told me personally that they are very proud of the end
result. Our culture is one of constant reassessment.
Second, our educational outreach has expanded along with
our mission as a result of decisions made by my direct senior,
the Chief of Naval Operations. And I can tell you Admiral
Roughead is four-square behind us. The College is now
responsible for all professional military education in the
Navy. As a result, the number of students we touch has grown
from 1,500 in 1989 to over 27,000 today, and the in-residence
program from 300 to almost 600.
In my short time as president, seven months on Saturday, I
have found the War College to be a professional graduate
institution of the highest quality, with faculty and staff
members who are satisfied they are doing meaningful work that
makes a difference.
The students are highly motivated professionals, many right
off the frontlines overseas, and we invite them in as we learn
together about this serious business of war.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to take any questions.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Admiral.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Wisecup can be found in
the Appendix on page 89.]
Dr. Snyder. General Williams.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROBERT M. WILLIAMS, USA, COMMANDANT,
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE
General Williams. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Major
General Bob Williams and I am the commandant of the United
States Army War College at Carlisle Barracks.
I am a soldier who has had the good fortune of being
associated with education and training of cadets and soldiers
for more than 34 years. I have served as an instructor and
assistant professor at West Point and as commander of two of
the Army's premier Combat Training Centers as well as the Armor
School and Center. Additionally I have had the great privilege
of serving in the operational Army both in peacetime and in
war. I feel well prepared for duties associated as commandant,
and it is an honor to be here today to discuss the professional
development of our Nation's strategic leaders at the war
colleges.
As has already been said, the mission of the war college is
to shape and develop the senior leaders our Nation will
require. The Army War College's unique contribution is to
prepare our students to deal effectively with complex
unstructured problems in strategic security environments and
render sound military advice when the application of land power
is part of a policy option. We do this recognizing fully that
military activities are often only a part of the solution to
complex problems. As we review the ever-changing security
landscape, particularly since 9/11, I believe that we will
best--and we do--best serve the country through these men and
women that we educate by achieving appropriate balance with
faculty, the student body, and the curriculum.
I would like to speak briefly to these three areas that I
believe are the key to assuring the rigor and responsiveness of
professional military education at the senior service level.
To begin with, faculty. It is the center of gravity for the
Army War College, and I am pleased to report that our faculty
meets the standards set by law and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff officer professional military education policy.
Our faculty achieves, I believe, a powerful synergy between the
melding of two cultures.
First, our military officers have 22 to 30 years of
professional expertise and a lifelong experience of training
and mentoring.
Second, our academic professors with their academic
credentials, their research expertise, and their ability to
publish. I firmly believe students' success is directly related
to the assignment of quality experienced officers representing
the joint U.S. Forces in recruitment of high-quality academic
professionals.
We recognize the value of assuring stability in key faculty
positions and have instituted the Professor of the United
States Army College Program to create, for lack of a better
word, hybrid professionals; that is to say, military officers
selected to pursue appropriate doctoral degrees and return to
the Army War College faculty.
Even as we seek continuity, we are willing to give up
faculty to support ongoing operations for periods of six months
to a year. Those faculty members return with valuable
experience that enhances our curriculum and helps us stay
current with the challenge our operational force is facing in
the field.
Balance is equally important within the student body if we
are to meet the expectations for future strategic leaders. The
war college experience works best, as we have all found, with a
cross-section of those military officers who will lead our
Nation's future operations. We know that a joint student body
representing all the services is important; and, equally
important is a mix of the branches that make up the core of the
Army's ability to execute its missions across the spectrum of
conflict. We also blend civilians from National Security Agency
(NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other branches of
government and international officers into this student mix.
A 21st century reality is that we are never going to fight
alone, and so we have embarked on a program, at the direction
of the Chief of Staff of the Army, to increase the number of
international Fellows in the student body. We will increase
that number by 25 percent this next year. He has asked me to
look at increasing it 100 percent over the course of 4 years.
This is not only important for U.S. officers to understand how
to fight together; it is important to prepare them for
effective coalition operations. And therefore we need the
diverse perspectives that come from international Fellows. We
sponsor the same intellectual dialogue and challenges in the
seminar that they will see in the future battlespace with each
other.
Students ought to be exposed and challenged about nations'
points of views. Our national investment in these international
students pays large dividends as former students, as we all
know, are often promoted to the highest ranks of their
militaries and civilian governments.
For similar reasons we believe we should be stronger, with
a greater interagency representation in the student body. It is
our business to prepare students to understand how military
power works in concert with other national elements of power.
Our seminars duplicate interagency dialogue and explore the
distinct cultures, skills, and attributes of other agencies.
Our students learn perspectives of diplomacy, economics, and
information elements of power.
I understand that other U.S. Government agencies do not
have the depth of personnel currently to allow them to divert
many for graduate-level education. That makes it tougher to
recruit interagency students and that makes it all the more
important to incorporate interagency representatives into
professional military education. It is a smart investment in
our Nation's ability to apply what is commonly referred to as
``whole-of-government strategies.''
My final comments are about achieving balance in the Army
War College curriculum. In the face of accumulated demands to
add to the curriculum, we sometimes risk diluting our focus on
education and slipping into training missions. I will admit
that to you here. Therefore, our curriculum reviews are marked
by a continuous debate over breadth versus depth, and hard
decisions about the time devoted to each subject, contact time
with faculty, time to read and reflect have to be made.
I feel the mechanisms are in place for me as the commandant
to push back on those things, but it does require hard costs.
Since the last study conducted by this committee, the Army War
College has transitioned its program of instruction to
incorporate its study of strategy as the central aspect of the
curriculum. Army War College students study classic theorists,
but they also study new strategies as well. The Army War
College must be adaptive to the needs of the current and future
fight, and we solicit feedback from the combatant commanders
and service chiefs as we assess and shape the curriculum on an
annual basis.
We seek to achieve balance between case studies and
military history, emerging doctrine such as the irregular
warfare doctrine in the counterinsurgency (COIN) manual as an
example, while providing a broad and strategic level look at
the leadership, ethics, and cultural intersection with national
strategy.
In closing, I can tell you that today's Army War College is
much different than the one of the late 1980s. It is a dynamic
institution that plays a significant role in preparing selected
leaders with the responsibilities of strategic leadership.
Reforms of the last 20 years, and particularly the advent
of JPME II, set high standards and expectations for assessment
and adaptation. Because the Nation needs agile and resourceful
as well as creative strategic leaders, our senior service
colleges must themselves be agile, resourceful, and creative.
We all know that education is an adaptive process, one which
will require continuous assessment and adjustment to ensure we
are still getting it right. I am confident that we are on that
path.
Chairman Snyder, I know that I have requested my written
statement be provided. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss
this fundamental issue with this subcommittee and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Williams can be found in
the Appendix on page 120.]
Dr. Snyder. General Forsyth.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MAURICE H. ``MAURY'' FORSYTH, USAF,
COMMANDER, SPAATZ CENTER FOR OFFICER EDUCATION, AND COMMANDANT,
AIR WAR COLLEGE
General Forsyth. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, Ranking
Member Wittman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear and testify about the Air War College.
This morning I would like to try to capture the essence of
our vision for the Air War College in a senior professional
military education version of the three Rs: relevance,
relationship, and renewal.
First, relevance. I admit right up front I have spent my
career as a pilot, joint staff officer, and commander, not an
academic. As such, however, I believe I can identify closely
with both the needs of the students and the needs of the
general officers and senior civilians who employ our graduates.
Like my other colleagues here today, I have witnessed
firsthand some of the tasks, dilemmas, and strategic choices
that our graduates will face. If our program is to remain
relevant, the Air War College education must clearly prepare
our graduates to meet the needs of joint, interagency, and
multinational operations, and not only in today's fight but
also tomorrow's, as unpredictable as that may be. Our
curriculum must properly balance the presentation of theory
with practical knowledge gained through the study of history,
personal experience, and the experience of others to produce
strategic thinkers and leaders.
Likewise, relevance demands a balanced faculty consisting
of both distinguished academics and experienced warfighters to
inspire and educate our students, many of whom are coming to
school right off of today's battlefields.
Finally, relevance requires that as a complement to our
accredited joint curriculum, each school devotes some part of
the educational experience to service competency; in our case,
at the Air War College, the competency of the air component.
While highly qualified faculty and challenging curriculum
shapes the relevance of our program, the students hold the key
to building all-important relationships. The Air War College
experience thrives on building relationships in and out of the
classroom between faculty and students and, most importantly,
on building relationships among the students who come from
different backgrounds, different services, different agencies,
and different nations.
In addition to academic growth, the relationships forged
during the shared common experience of war college can and do
have lasting impacts as graduates deal with complex issues
throughout the remainder of their careers. Oftentimes, that
impact is manifested in a phone call seeking a different
perspective on a challenging issue. Other times it is the
chance encounter with a trusted fellow graduate in the hallway
prior to a critical meeting, or, even more significantly, at a
deployed location.
Perhaps the most important of these relationships are those
forged with the international officers from 45 different
countries who make up almost 20 percent of the integrated
student body.
While some aspects of the Air War College for U.S. students
may be duplicated in other graduate school settings, this one
cannot: the chance to meet, interact, and build a lasting
relationship with officers selected by their countries to spend
time in this formative year of senior professional military
education in the United States. Many of these international
Fellows go on to hold the most senior positions in their
nation's military and government.
Cultivating these relationships has never been more
important in today's interconnected and interdependent security
environment. The importance of relationships is difficult to
quantify but hard to deny.
Similarly difficult to quantify but just as important is
the opportunity for renewal. The Air War College experience
must build energy, strength, and enthusiasm for the difficult
tasks that lie ahead for graduates and their families. Renewal
comes from a student discovering that other students have
overcome similar difficult leadership dilemmas in their
careers. Renewal comes from intense discussion and debate on
the role of leadership, command, integrity, and ethics. Renewal
comes from the students gaining confidence in their ability to
craft strategy in the joint, multinational, and interagency
environment at the strategic level. Renewal comes from
executing a demanding academic schedule built on a scaffold of
stability and predictability that allows students time to
reflect, synthesize, and discuss the material they study, as
well as time to reconnect with their vital support network.
And, finally, renewal comes from developing a clear
understanding of the importance of the contributions of
graduates and senior leaders to the success of their units and
their Nation.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and the
chance to outline the important contributions of relevance,
relationships, and renewal, the Air War College's success and
the success of our graduates. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Forsyth can be found in
the Appendix on page 140.]
Dr. Snyder. Colonel Belcher.
STATEMENT OF COL. MICHAEL F. BELCHER, USMC, DIRECTOR, MARINE
CORPS WAR COLLEGE
Colonel Belcher. Good morning, Chairman Snyder, Ranking
Member Wittman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate this opportunity to address the subcommittee today
and discuss the educational achievements of your Marine Corps
War College.
Inspired and supported by the House Armed Services
Committee and its Chairman, the 29th Commandant of the Marine
Corps, General Alfred M. Gray ignited a renaissance in Marine
Corps professional military education in the 1980s that still
burns today.
In August of 1990 he directed the convening of an elite
group of six lieutenant colonels to conduct an intensive one-
year study of the art of war and the profession of arms.
Entitled ``The Art of War Studies Program,'' it was a precursor
of today's Marine Corps War College.
Since then the college has grown in size and scope, yet
remains true to its original charter. Now as then, the college
remains committed to preparing the Nation's next generation of
strategic leaders to confront the challenges of an increasingly
complex, volatile, and globalized world. To do so, it employs a
rigorous multidimensional curriculum, presented by first-rate
faculty to a small elite group of high-caliber, highly
competitive senior military officers and government officials.
Focused on the strategic level of war, the curriculum examines
both traditional and irregular modes of warfare, the
instruments of national power, as well as the application of
soft and hard power. It employs historical analysis to derive
enduring lessons from history and apply them to the critical
issues existing in today's operational environment as well as
those emerging on the strategic horizon.
The curriculum also reflects the culture of the service in
which it is borne, specifically a lean, agile, adaptable
expeditionary mindset that spans air, land, sea, space, and
cyberspace spectra.
It also reflects the words of General James T. Conway, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, or, more accurately, his
commitment that ``We believe the human dimension of war is the
most critical element, and that boldness, creativity,
intelligence, and warrior spirit are prime attributes.''
To foster the development of critical and creative thought,
the college employs active, adult-learning methodology to
include highly personalized in-classroom instruction; local,
domestic, and international field studies; practical
application exercises; self-selected scholarly research; and
professional time for reading and reflection. To remain current
and cogent, the curriculum undergoes a vigorous, continuous,
and multi-level review and validation process.
The curriculum is taught by seasoned faculty comprised of
military, government, and civilian professors; some operators,
some academics, but all professionals in their fields of
endeavor. The instruction is enhanced by an expansive adjunct
faculty of functional experts, regional experts, and
interagency experts as well as visiting guest speakers.
Due to the college's proximity to the National Capital
Region and our small size, the students are afforded unmatched
access to senior military, interagency, industry, and academic
leaders whom they meet with on a one-to-one personal basis,
which promotes open, intimate, and informal discourse. Our
guest speakers rival those of the most prestigious civilian
universities. Who others hope to have at a commencement, we
have in the classroom on a routine basis.
Lastly, the educational experience is enhanced by the
quality and diversity of the college's student population
itself. While small, the student body consists of top
performers, hand-selected by their respective service or agency
for their exceptional operational and academic performance as
well as their future potential for service. The student body
includes representatives from all four services, both active
and Reserve components; the United States Coast Guard; several
government agencies; and multiple ethnic groups; as well as a
myriad of occupational specialties. Thanks to this mixture, the
students learn joint and interagency operations not just
through instruction but also through personal observation and
daily interaction.
Our vision for the war college is to retain the academic
advantages inherent in being a small, elite college--
specifically, the academic access, agility, and excellence we
currently enjoy--while progressively growing into a more robust
educational institution. To achieve this vision we have
commenced a program to expand the size and diversity of our
student population; to expand the size, capability, and
diversity of our faculty; and, most importantly, to expand our
academic outreach efforts. While the college's educational
experience cannot be replicated by any civilian university, we
believe that it can be enhanced through increased interaction
with leading-edge civilian institutions as well as
collaboration with the other military educational institutions
here today.
Mr. Chairman, our graduates will face a world dramatically
different from that of their predecessors. Consequently, the
Marine Corps War College is dedicated to intellectually arming
them for the challenges ahead, to mentally reset the force for
the fights yet to come. I am convinced that we are achieving
this objective, and with the continued advocacy and support of
this subcommittee we will do so far into the future.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the panel and I
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Colonel Belcher.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Belcher can be found in
the Appendix on page 149.]
Dr. Snyder. I know Admiral Hall probably recognized that he
is sitting at the beginning of six people, that every question
will come to him first. But we are not going to do that. We
will move it around so you can all have the experience of
saying ``I am so glad I wasn't the first one asked.''
Admiral Wisecup, we are going to start with you this time,
and we will loop around. I want to ask the following question.
This morning President Obama, about seven o'clock eastern time,
gave--I did not see the whole speech, I saw excerpts of it--he
gave what seemed to be a very well-received speech, certainly a
much anticipated speech, calling for a new beginning in terms
of the relationship between our Nation and the world of Islam.
How will that speech impact what occurs on your campuses and
classes this week?
Admiral Wisecup.
Admiral Wisecup. Sir, thanks for that question. I watched
part of that this morning, and I will tell you, knowing the
faculty like I do, this will all fold into our constant
reassessment. We have faculty members who are very well
connected. They are always out and about.
A faculty member, for example, who teaches in strategy and
policy is also our area specialist in the Indian Ocean,
Pakistan, India. He will, one, know about this speech; two, he
will have the text; three, probably knows people connected with
it. And then when the faculty does their curriculum review,
which, in fact, they are in the process of now for the next
academic year, those kinds of ideas will factor into how they
retorque the curriculum.
So imagine, if you can, the network of people from our very
distinguished faculty who are doing this same thing and then
they all bring these in to talk. They do what they call
bootstrap sessions as they review the curriculum for the next
trimester's teaching, week by week, class by class. And so
these faculty members will sit in a room, for example, and have
oftentimes a heated debate over what is going to go into this
curriculum. That is when this kind of information, this kind of
context, can be provided and factored right into the
development of the curriculum, right up to just a few weeks
before they actually go in front of the students on the podium,
which really keeps things current.
Dr. Snyder. General Steel.
General Steel. Sir, I would echo what Admiral Wisecup said.
What I would add to it is, even while his speech was ongoing,
the blogging network was already alive with our network of
graduates throughout the region there, already communicating
with faculty here at the war college with what they were
perceiving the receipt of this speech was. I anticipate that
network to be alive and well here throughout this week, the
discussions to be had. We will roll all transcripts, other
discussions that the think tanks come out with, into our
faculty--our curriculum review here during the summer. And when
we get to this particular phase in our curriculum with next
year's class, I am sure there will be even new information to
roll into our classrooms here as much progress is made in the
months ahead from his speech here.
Dr. Snyder. Admiral.
Admiral Wisecup. Yes, sir, I think this is a perfect time
of the year for this to take place.
Dr. Snyder. Let me interrupt you. Several of you have a
graduation coming up, don't you, so you are not in a full
classroom mode now.
Admiral Hall. Right. But I know it will still have an
impact, and it comes, as I said, at the right time of the year.
We have 20 international fellows right now at ICAF, and I just
counted them, I think about 50 percent of them are from the
Middle East or Muslim countries, and also an Israeli student.
Now, at the beginning of the year, they might be hesitant.
But now, as we said, academic freedom and the policy of non-
attribution, as we go through the year, not only is their mind
expanded, but they become comfortable in the environment and
they realize, the international fellows, they do have the
freedom to speak openly about their opinions, and U.S. students
have learned to accept these. It is a very fascinating process
to see this awakening happen.
So they have fertile minds to process this. Today is a
picnic for the international fellows, which I will attend, and
I will ask them what they thought of the comments.
But each seminar has one international fellow. They will be
questioned, what do you think about this, and there will be
academic discussions in both directions without any fear of
attribution. I think it is a perfect time, and their minds are
open.
I have observed from two classes, it is about this time of
year we want to get rid of our students because we have opened
their minds so much they are a real pain in the fact they
challenge every assumption and openly discuss issues. So I
think it is a perfect time and it will be well received.
Dr. Snyder. Colonel Belcher.
Colonel Belcher. The impact back at the college campus
would be, one, the professors beaming with pride that what they
taught throughout the year is now coming to fruition, that the
history and the background that they gave regarding Islamic
culture, regarding previous campaigns, the regional studies
that we did, as well as the international travel to Asia-
Pacific region, specifically India, have proven true. So they
are silently blushing.
The students are silently in awe that wow, they got it
right and prepared us for what is coming up and prepared us to
address these issues.
From that, there will be continued discourse and debate
regarding what that means in the future, how that is applied,
what the policy implications are, and, more importantly, what
are the military ramifications that they need to be ready to
implement when they go to their next job at a service or
combatant command headquarters.
For the curriculum, we will continue to enhance that and
look at that as we do our curriculum reviews, as discussed
previously, and also it leads into the perfect segue that next
year as we introduce our first international fellow, we have
three coming on board, one from France, one from Canada, and
most importantly a, a brigadier general from Pakistan, it will
allow us to continue that discourse and debate the following
academic year.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
General Forsyth.
General Forsyth. Mr. Chairman, sadly, on two accounts, I
didn't hear the speech, number one, but number two, at the Air
War College they did graduate last Thursday, and so we have no
students there.
But that said, I think this is part and parcel to, quite
frankly, one of the best class case studies, if you will, this
whole entire year, the whole changing of the government, and
thereby the changing of the strategy, the national security
strategy that will roll down to the national military strategy
and how that all takes place has been an incredible academic
classroom in and of itself, and this is but one other piece of
that that, as everyone has said, will be rolled into next year,
and, quite frankly, not just this speech, but the way we have
gotten to where we are from the Bush Administration to the way
we are in the Obama Administration throughout the entire year
has been just an incredible academic groundwork, if you will.
Dr. Snyder. General Williams.
General Williams. Sir, I did have the opportunity to watch
it this morning. I think the President, I believe the
President, had a number of major themes, obviously. But two of
them I took note of was one of diplomacy and a willingness to
listen, and also assist was one thing. But clearly also he
reconfirmed that he will, this Administration will, protect the
American public.
I believe for us it will perhaps push our desire, as we
have had for some time now, in the education of our strategic
leaders, to focus on an emphasis of all elements of national
power, including diplomacy, economics, information, as well as
the part that we are experts in, the military component.
But it clearly signals for us, I think, an emerging
national security strategy that, of course, our academics, as
we end our course on Saturday, we will take aboard and adjust
our curriculum as appropriate.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentleman, I think as a follow-up from that, I want to ask,
in context of what we see today, which is a very, very dynamic
period of time in our history, both nationally and
internationally, with things changing constantly, how do you
see your challenge of making sure that your schools can change
in relationship to those external changes, but also remain true
to making sure those fundamental subject matters are being
taught and instilled in the graduates from your institutions?
And also, how do you take the lessons learned under current
operations and incorporate them within that whole context of
making sure your graduates come out with that rounded strategic
knowledge to be the leaders our Nation needs to go into the
future?
I will start with General Steel.
General Steel. Sir, you are right to highlight the
challenge of the school in protecting some of the core elements
in our educational requirements. For example, at the National
War College, we try to stay at the strategic level.
I have got only 10 months to work with. We have got a lot
of ground to cover. Our students, when they first show up, have
all been operating at the operational level. Their minds are
rather fixed and it takes several months to kind of unlock that
and make progress. We constantly get challenged with themes
that commanders in the field would like to see in graduates so
that they are ready to go as soon as they get into their new
job. Most of these requests are at the tactical and operational
level.
So I work with my faculty regularly to resolve how to best
approach the requests of the combatant commanders, senior
leadership, other agencies, that this particular new dynamic
environment be incorporated into your curriculum somehow. We
usually find a way where either it is already being discussed,
it is just not a sole centerpiece in the curriculum, but if we
can find how to best thread that new dynamic environment into
our curriculum, we will do so, and we will find the best course
to put that in.
Also, electives turn out to be a pretty good option for our
student body as well to get a more focused study on a
particular concept. So we do use the elective opportunity as
one to take on some of these new fields that are being asked
for the colleges to invest in.
Mr. Wittman. Thanks. Admiral Wisecup.
Admiral Wisecup. Sir, I think the best way to answer your
question is to go back to the question that Chairman Snyder
posed about the Obama speech, for example, and the mechanism
that I outlined for you how we can roll things into our
curriculum.
This is again a function of the faculty. I will give you an
example. At this point, we are going into the nuclear posture
review, so now time is right for people who can talk to these
issues about nuclear deterrence in a new world. The interesting
thing is we have people who have been constantly working those
issues, kind of like the Christian monks in Ireland who
preserved the sacred texts during the Middle Ages. And in fact,
we have this expertise that has not been permitted to atrophy,
and now that it is needed, we have been able to provide that
expertise to a variety of agencies and government folks who
have been asking for it and searching it out.
The other thing is looking at how the faculty gets out; one
of our faculty members visited North Korea about a month and a
half ago with a private visit of a major foundation, and he
works research. Our faculty is constantly publishing. They are
contributing constantly. These are the same faculty that are
going to roll into the bootstrap sessions and talk about the
curriculum.
The other thing was for example when I was strike group
commander, at the Ronald Reagan Strike Group, before I even
knew I was going to go be president of the war college, I
actually knew the expertise of these experts and actually asked
them to come out, like General Steel was explaining, to come
out to my strike group and talk to us about the region of the
Indian Ocean. So they got the benefit of coming out and talking
with on-scene commanders about the current situation, then flew
off to visit their contacts in different places in the region,
and we got the benefit of their knowledge. These are the same
people who are going to roll this information into the
bootstraps and into the curriculum development.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Colonel Belcher.
Colonel Belcher. Thank you very much for that question,
sir. Our curriculum is founded in the enduring tenets of war,
which have not changed in many, many years. However, with that
said, we do look to capitalize on new and novel approaches
coming out of the current operations that we can apply within
our curriculum. Specifically, we look back into history,
identify those principles applicable, and then apply them in
modern scenarios in the current setting that our students are
operating in or will operate in as graduates.
To drive those, we go to multiple sources. First and
foremost is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance
through the learning objectives that he establishes and the
yearly Special Areas of Emphasis. In large part, these will be
the most critical elements of the upcoming year that we begin
to integrate into our curriculum to ensure that we are dealing
with the topical issues, but not whipsawing the curriculum all
around and chasing the topic of the day.
The other ways we do this are through hiring of faculty
that are coming directly from operational backgrounds, myself
just having come out of a regimental command tour, bringing the
experience from that and previous combat tours, right to the
schoolhouse.
Secondly, it is through continual scanning of the strategic
horizon by the professors, through reading, research,
interacting with the think tanks and study groups, such as the
Strategy Division Group, the joint warfighting centers, to see
what is on the strategic horizon that we need to prepare our
students for, and then incorporating that in a coherent method
that is synchronized with the rest of our curriculum.
Other ways include routine interviews with combatant
component commanders and service leaders. Yesterday I had the
opportunity to sit down and talk with Lieutenant General Allen,
Deputy Commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), regarding his
most critical issues, as well as the critical capabilities he
is looking for from graduates from my war college.
The other ways, continuing to interview our graduates and
their supervisors to see that the curriculum met the needs when
they came into the force.
Finally, we also allow academic white space. We have a
series of classes called ``issues in modern warfare'' that we
purposely do not fill at the beginning of the year, knowing
that critical issues will pop up during the year we would like
to craft classes for. Having a small faculty, I have the
organizational agility to put classes together, find leading-
edge experts come in and fill those. Such topics in the past
have been the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, what would be
the implications for the military; the effects of a pandemic,
which happened to be very timely because several weeks later
swine flu began to reach the headlines; a variety of topics
that we can then add in to make sure the student as he walks
out the door is as up-to-date as he can be before he begins his
next job.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, sir.
General Williams.
General Williams. Sir, I appreciate the question. I think
that I don't have a problem with staying current with the
current student body at the tactical and operational level.
With 70 to 80 percent of them coming in with recent Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
experience, if anything, that is a challenge for us to push
them to the strategic level.
In terms of staying current at the strategic level, we have
always been, like some of my colleagues here, a think tank, for
lack of a better description, for the Department of the Army,
the combatant commands (COCOMs) and various other agencies in
the United States. There is enormous intellectual talent in the
faculty, and they often are called for their expertise. In
fact, this last year I have had members of the faculty serve on
Brigadier General H.R. McMaster's team building a new strategy
for Afghanistan, as well as answering a call from International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for a strategist where I sent
my director of National Security and Strategy for six months to
assist in the building of the strategy for Afghanistan. By the
way, as his six months was over, we sent the number two man
from that department, and he is down range right now.
So at any given time we look for opportunities to take our
faculty and offer our faculty up to work on some of the hardest
problems that the Nation is facing at the strategic level. When
they come back, of course, they seed the faculty, they inform
the curriculum. So that is enormously empowering.
The other part of your question, though, is how do we
protect the core from a whole host of requirements, oftentimes
that look like training as opposed to education. Sometimes
those things come through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (CJCS) at the Military Education Committee, and we are
all in attendance at those, as well as our deans throughout the
year, and we have an opportunity to push back on those items so
that we aren't required to put them into the curriculum.
Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but I feel confident that
the mechanisms are in place for us to do what we need to do or
I need to do as a commandant.
I do not get that many requirements from the Army that I
would call training requirements apart from those kinds of
things that we would want to do anyway; recently suicide
training. We take the time. It is important. It is absolutely
required and we are proud to do that.
I hope I have answered your question. I think we have the
mechanisms in place to stay current, which is to say we stay at
the strategic level. We are in the business of allowing these
students to master the strategic art, and we have to stay
focused at that.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. General Forsyth.
General Forsyth. Sir, thanks for the question. Everybody
has touched on or at least danced around a little bit where I
would like to go with this, and that is the balancing act or
the tension that is always there between the current event or
the current topic of the day and the foundations of leadership,
ethics, strategy, those things that need to be the bedrock of
what we do. And I think that pretty much in many instances
comes to the people at this table, to make sure that we have an
advocate for both.
The faculty, at least at the Air War College is about a
third civilian, a third military, Air Force military, and about
a third joint military and interagency and, quite frankly,
coalition as well. That mixture allows us to span the spectrum
between the basic foundations and current events. Add into that
the students, that as we just heard, many of them just came
from the war and you try to extract them from either the
tactical level or operational level and bring them up to
strategic level, it makes for, quite frankly, a great dynamic
within the classroom. So with respect to making sure that the
foundations are there and the balance is correct, I think that
rises, quite frankly, mostly, in many cases, to my level.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Admiral Hall.
Admiral Hall. Yes. I heard the question as how the
President's speech affects your curriculum and how do we
maintain our core courses. This is a dynamic period and it was
a very compelling speech, but at ICAF, we want to develop
strategic leaders, folks that can formulate strategy, and
analyze strategy, but not chase strategy. So this will become a
case study to be in our national security studies and our
strategic leadership courses as we work students through the
Socratic method in challenging the assumptions. So we are
constantly reviewing our curriculum. In fact, we are going
through the formal process right now, and we see what is
relevant.
I see it becoming part of a teaching package, to use as an
example, in case study, but not changing the curriculum. You
don't want us to chase policy speeches, but learn how to
challenge and interpret policy and develop policy.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Snyder. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
you for all of your comments and your openness. I certainly
appreciate it.
I have a few questions as you have been talking. One is the
issue you mentioned, the six months kind of turnaround in terms
of deployments and bringing people back into school. Has that
been a problem, a major problem for any of you in terms of
deployments, and does that mean that we might have fewer
officers who are trained in advanced professional education?
General Williams. Whenever I get a request from the theater
for assistance that might involve the pulling of one of my
faculty for that purpose, I immediately go to the dean, who is
sitting directly behind me, and I ask him, can we support the
United States Army or this theater commander, wherever the
requirement comes from, and not degrade our primary mission,
which is the education of the students, which we are charged
with? If he comes back to me and says yes, we can do that, then
I believe it is part of my mission to support the operational
and institutional Army. So I think it is important that we do
that.
By the way, to your real question, do I have trouble with
that, I usually have faculty members lining up in the hallways
volunteering to do this, because they fully understand that as
great educators, they are adding additional tools to their kit,
for the audience and the constituencies they have to talk to.
So, no, I don't have a personal problem from them, and so far
we have not had to say no. We have gotten close a couple of
times.
But I hope I have answered your question, ma'am. I have not
had a problem with this.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else want to weigh in differently on
that?
Admiral Hall. I think the question goes to deployments and
expectations, and the deployments affect all aspects of
military life, including family life.
Back when Senator McCain and his classmates went to
National Defense University, they said, You are coming back
from being prisoners of war (POWs). This is going to be an
opportunity for you to relax, to get back in touch with your
family, to regroup and work on your health.
Our programs no longer allow that. As I referred to in my
opening statement, it is a very rigorous academic program. So
we bring folks in right from the field, whether it be Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine, and also many of our deployed
civilians, they are told it is a time to catch their breath,
when really it is a very rigorous academic year, and they don't
often get to catch their breath.
So, also many, if they are coming from out of theater, they
may leave their families in their previous duty stations so now
you have a situation of geobatching, as we call it,
geographically isolated from your family. So there are
implications to that.
So what do we do? We are always talking about post-
traumatic stress and looking for that in our students. We have
medical and psychological help. We have health and fitness. So
we do work on that basis of healing any wounds, seen or unseen,
and we have both types of wounds come to ICAF.
So, it is challenging, and you work with them, and you work
with the families. But it is a rigorous course of study, and
overall in the military everywhere, they are going to find
challenges with all the deployments. That is a different
perspective.
General Steel. Ma'am, if I could add, it is not just
deployments, but our schools and our faculty are sought after
globally because of their expertise. So whether they are being
asked to go and deploy to support the Army or combatant
commander or just to come and help them with some research
aspect, quite often the schools, and here at National as well,
the first thing we look is to see whether we can support it
with our ongoing activities at the college. If we can do that
and it enhances this faculty's expertise, we will do everything
we can to support it, because that faculty member will return
with value-added.
Mrs. Davis. I can understand that.
If I can go really quickly, Mr. Chairman, back to General
Williams, I think you mentioned you would like to increase the
international officers by about 25 percent, 100 percent over 4
years. What percentage are they now?
General Williams. We have 40 in the class of 340. I have
never figured out that percentile. We will go to 50 next year,
and the Chief of Staff of the Army has asked me how we would go
to 80. What that would do for us in the classroom, currently
every one of our seminars has approximately two foreign
international students in it. We would go to four.
Again, the desire is to open the aperture as part of our
cultural training at the senior level, and there is no better
vehicle I think to do that than to bring these very successful
officers from around the world, all nominated by COCOMs that
come through in some cases, in all cases, the Army staff, and
then they are sent to us based on the G-3's decision of who
will make it.
Mrs. Davis. I am just wondering, are there barriers to
bringing more international officers in? Is it a matter of
having the seats essentially, or are there other constraints
that get in the way?
General Williams. You are absolutely hitting on an issue
for us. But it is a matter of facilities and faculty. I am okay
for this next year to go to 50, but the dean and the academic
board have reported to me beyond that we have to look at some
other ways before we increase any further. But there are no
barriers beyond that that I think I need legislative help on
for sure.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Snyder. I am going to pick on you, Admiral Wisecup. How
often do you all get together, either formally or informally,
as a group?
Admiral Wisecup. I am new to this process. I missed the
meeting we recently had.
General Williams. Sir, I have been doing this for about 14
months now. I believe I would be correct in saying I have seen
these guys about three or four times this last year in various
forums. About eight months ago, my board of visitors sponsored
a symposium in Washington, and all of them were invited to
discuss PME. Together we collectively decided to get together
prior to the Military Education Coordination Council (MECC),
the joint staff meeting, and General Caldwell hosted a meeting
at Fort Leavenworth, where we sat down and discussed issues and
ideas before we would go to that meeting in Washington, D.C. I
believe, if I am not correct, I am talking for their
university, I believe they are going to host a meeting of just
those you see at this table this coming fall.
I hope I have answered your question.
Dr. Snyder. I wanted to ask, some of us have talked about
this before, but we have heard since we started doing this look
and the staff has heard it also that there is variability
amongst the services in where the students are within their
career. Some branches of the service, the students clearly see
being in one of these colleges as a career enhancing move.
Others are not so sure.
I will pick on the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps seems to
get the best kudos for both looking at the students before they
get there, the faculty before they get there, but also figuring
out where they are going to go afterwards in terms of, yes,
this is going to help your career both as a faculty member and
as a student. I may be wrong with that. These are just
anecdotal things.
Would each of you respond. Do you think there is
variability among the services in terms of how they go about
selecting the students, selecting faculty for a contribution to
your organizations, and then how they look at where these
careers are going to go after the students have graduated and
the faculty, I am talking about military faculty now, have
completed their careers.
Admiral Hall, we will start with you.
Admiral Hall. Yes. I discussed this topic often because I
say there are service cultures. So speaking from the Naval
service, there are times in your career where you need
expertise at sea tactically, whether it be in the cockpit, on
amphibious ships, or in submarines. So therefore you don't need
somebody to be thinking strategically at that point. You need
them to excel in leadership positions at sea, and that is part
of our service culture in the Navy. That is how you get
evaluated and promoted, again through challenging leadership
assignments at sea, where other services might not have that
same requirement, their culture is different. As you alluded
to, the Marine Corps, it is more difficult to get in-residence
senior level school than it is to make colonel. It is a smaller
subset.
So I don't think you can ever get uniformity across all of
the services as to the right timing and the right measurement
of career enhancement.
I know that in all services, it is going to be career
enhancing to go to an in-residence senior level school, but you
are not going to change the service cultures to get a uniform
answer that you can stamp across-the-board.
I just looked at my distinguished graduates, and it is
uniformly spread amongst the services on my distinguished
graduates, whether it be Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps.
So once they get here, they do excel uniformly. But I think as
far as promotion goes, it is service culture.
General Steel. Sir, I would say at the National War
College, we rarely see a military student show up that doesn't
meet our criterion. They all succeed. Most of them are either
on a promotion list or get promoted while they are at the
National War College. So I don't see the experience of coming
to the National War College as anything but a positive benefit
to the military member when they are competed and selected and
attend the National War College.
Again, the quality of student that the services are
providing is high. As I shared with you yesterday, this being
my second class experience, the only thing I have seen
struggled in fulfilling the student list has been sometimes on
our Army side, due to the operational tempo (op tempo). Usually
they are a little bit late getting their slate in. But they
always fill it and the quality is extremely high. Just as
Admiral Hall shared with you----
Dr. Snyder. Excuse me, you are talking about students. How
about faculty?
General Steel. For faculty, we are very selective. The
services nominate to the National War College who they would
like to contribute for faculty. That faculty is interviewed,
screened and evaluated, a recommendation is made to me through
a faculty hiring committee as to whether they meet the
standards or not.
Dr. Snyder. I understand that. My question, though, was
where it fits within the service. Admiral Hall referred to
service culture. Do people come to you and say I have a dead-
end career, I am going to faculty here for a year or two. Is
there a variability amongst the services when the military
services assign faculty to you, and I know you go through the
selection process, they are topnotch people, but do they
perceive that their career is enhanced by being a faculty
member for a couple of years?
General Steel. Most of them have had a teaching background
or experience, and they know what they are getting into, and
they seek out the National War College as a way to again
broaden their teaching credentials. So I think they come from
all the services to the college fully aware of what their
experience is going to be at the National War College. I don't
think they look down on it as something negative. They know
they are getting into a teaching realm and most of them will
already have at the Ph.D. level, so they are rather senior in
their service careers already. I think they look at it as a
positive set of years to spend in the remaining time that they
are going to serve with their service there.
Dr. Snyder. Admiral.
Admiral Wisecup. I think it is a positive. The people who
come to the Naval War College's military faculty may not have
sought it out. But at some point in your career you get to the
point where there is not a lot of individual input into where
you are going with your life.
But for example, one of our military faculty was just
selected to be carrier air group commander. So I view that as a
very positive sign that everyone is not going to go on to be
Chief of Naval Operations, but I will tell you, the people I
talk to, all view it as a positive and feel like they are
really doing meaningful work. Here is the way we can help the
person who is just coming right off the flight line.
For example, in our Strategy and Policy Department, we can
put a very experienced civilian professor in with the newer
strategy and policy professor, okay. But the point being, the
people I have talked to, remember, I have only been there seven
months, but I have talked to a lot of the military faculty, and
almost all of them view it as a positive.
General Williams. I think we have to look at, and I will
speak for the Army War College, we have to look at our colonels
in a sort of unique way, to answer your question, sir. The
colonels who come and teach at the United States Army War
College are between their 25th and 30th year of service. They
don't come back to get promoted to general officer. I think
that is very important to say here.
I would welcome lieutenant colonels, senior lieutenant
colonels, senior lieutenant colonels and/or junior colonels who
are competitive for brigadier general. But perhaps one of the
second or third order effects of Goldwater-Nichols is that when
a student finishes at the war college, it is very hard for him
or her to have the time, the discretionary time, to serve a
tour of duty as an educator in the war college and still remain
competitive, in part because they need to go and get
``jointed'' quite often. We have actually had students that we
would like to keep on faculty, but if we kept them, they would
not be competitive for general officer.
Now, having said that, I believe that the colonels who do
serve, I don't think we have had to drag anyone back to do
this. I think that they are at a point in their career that
they want to give back and they want to be outstanding
educators and the reputation of the institution is such they
are very pleased to come back. They have great maturity, they
have experience, and they fit this job particularly well at
this particular time in their career.
So, I think that the quality of my faculty, particularly
the military faculty, is absolutely outstanding. They are
terrific educators. I hope I have answered your question.
Dr. Snyder. General Forsyth.
General Forsyth. Sir, I would agree completely with General
Williams that the quality of the faculty is fabulous. I would
say that the expectations of the faculty, the military faculty,
are different and they run the full spectrum. There are those
that, as you have heard, come there knowing that is probably
their last assignment, sometimes because they want it to be,
sometimes because of their timing in their career.
I have one data point. We lost one faculty this year in
all, and she got a great joint assignment here in the D.C.
area, basically what she wanted. So it was looked upon
favorably there. We have five volunteers to get their Ph.D.s to
come back and teach at the Air War College.
So it spans the entire gambit. In this last brigadier
general nomination board, one of the people had been a faculty
member. So I think it is not what maybe in the past was looked
at as a dead end assignment. I think it is looked at as a
valuable assignment to the service. They can contribute still,
no matter where they are in that spectrum, whether this might
be their last assignment or whether they want to continue on.
Dr. Snyder. Colonel Belcher.
Colonel Belcher. Sir, the president of the Marine Corps
University has made it his policy that he is willing to
sacrifice continuity for capability. So it has been the policy
of the university's throughout all the services to select the
best and the brightest to come and instruct or direct at the
various colleges.
So there is some risk in that, in that you will have an
officer for a year, maybe two years, before he is selected for
command or for promotion, but that is a risk we are willing to
assume to get the competence that he brings from his past
operational experience.
For myself as the director, I competed to get selected for
this billet. The other Marine that will be coming on board this
year similarly, coming out of the National War College, was
hand-selected for this billet and has a bright potential for
future service and promotion.
In fact, among my sister colleges at the Expeditionary
Warfare School, the last two directors there were selected for
brigadier general during their tours there, showing the value
that the Marine Corps puts in education as an investment for
the future.
Among the other services that we have on staff, the U.S.
Air Force has sent us topnotch officers. My current Air Force
officer was just selected to command at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base. My prior U.S. Air Force officer is now sitting
behind me, who decided to become the dean of academics because
of his academic proficiency and his support for the school.
The Army similarly has given me operational experts,
practitioners. My current Army officer was selected after a
tour in Afghanistan where he worked at the current operations
shop and is an active pilot.
I have been very impressed with the staff we have had from
all of the services, and couldn't have asked for a higher
quality faculty to go forward with.
Thank you, sir.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to, again, take it to another step in the Chairman's
question. I want to ask about, how do we go back attracting the
best or I guess top tier of civilian faculty? What are the
things that we need to be looking at to address that? Is it
things like tenure, copyright, pay, them being able to keep
their government retirement, research, administrative
assistance? What do we need to be doing to attract and retain
the best and brightest on the civilian side of the faculty?
General Williams, I will start with you.
General Williams. I may call on my dean here to speak up.
Let me start by saying we work very hard to bring in
talented civilian faculty as well. Many are, by the way, former
military officers who have received their terminal degree and
so they serve us very well.
We also, and I mentioned this, have a program at the United
States Army War College where we bring in those colonels in the
25 to 30 year mark who have a particular penchant for academics
and being outstanding educators, and we send them off to work
on their doctorate. I currently have 10 officers that have
received their Ph.D. on my faculty, I have 5 that are working
on it, and I have 5 civilian professors who are a product of
that particular program.
We, of course, advertise throughout the United States for
openings that come up, and we do very well with the standard
professors of history, former planners, those kinds,
leadership, but we are not competitive in a number of certain
areas. As an example, economists, behavioral scientists,
military sociologists. We do not pay competitively.
I would ask Dean Johnsen if he would like to add perhaps to
that and offer up any insights into what we could do
differently.
Bill.
Mr. Johnsen. Sir, thank you. One the things we find, sir,
is given the nature of our curriculum and the professional
nature of it, we sometimes have difficulty convincing standard
liberal academics from a more liberal arts background that this
is the place for them to come and teach.
I believe, like many of the other schools, if we can get
someone to an interview at our institution and demonstrate to
them that we are open, we have academic freedom, the quality of
our students in particular, the faculty, the ability to
influence policy on occasion, then we have a strong possibility
of bringing those people to our faculty and then retaining
them. It is doing the proper advertising and networking within
the various disciplines that will allow us to do that.
Mr. Wittman. General Steel.
General Steel. Sir, on that list you read off of, I would
just echo that there should be some work done on the copyright
issue and the annuitants discussion that is out there. I know
that affects some of the faculty that we hire. So, yes, we do
need to do some homework there.
We are fortunate again in the Washington area to have a
little bit of a draw on some of that high talent that is out
there just because this is Washington, people like to live and
work around this city, and teaching over at National Defense
University is a pretty good job, if that is what you like to
do. So that is a draw.
We don't have any problems getting people to apply for an
opening at faculty at National Defense University. We usually
end up whittling that down, and we have a good solid dozen
every time to draw from. So I believe we are getting top-tier
talent with our civilian hires.
As I shared with you yesterday, one of the things that I
would like to see considered for the National War College was
that kind of an endowed chair position to try to draw on the
high policy National Security Agency talent, that when folks
leave those positions, they have an opportunity to come over
and teach at the National War College and we can tap into their
recent experiences, and that would add again to the college as
far as becoming a preeminent national security strategy
institution. So a look into that kind of endowed chair
possibility would be helpful.
Mr. Wittman. Admiral Hall.
Admiral Hall. We have many similarities with the National
War College. Our location gives us a great pool of faculty to
pull from. But one thing that General Steel didn't mention is
accreditation. Both our schools are accredited. We want to
maintain our accreditation, because why would a faculty member
in D.C. want to work at a school that doesn't give an
accredited master's degree, because they can go to George
Mason, Georgetown, George Washington.
The other thing is there is always concern, are we paying
them equivalent if they could go down to George Washington and
things of that nature. So we are working on the pay.
Tenure, I don't think I would want to go down the tenure
route because we don't want our institutes to become stale and
not have that ability to keep currency.
At ICAF, my faculty members are about 92 members, that
gives us a 3.5 to 1 ratio. Thirty of those are military, 45 are
Title X, but I have 17 to 19 that are civilian, that are
interagency faculty chairs, including an industry chair. Right
now it is from IBM, and it was a very competitive process on
her relief, and American Express is sending the next industry
chair. So we have 20 chairs that come from interagency,
everything from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National
Security Agency (NSA), State Department, et cetera.
So we have a very dynamic civilian faculty. But our Title
X, it is going to be accreditation, A, and, B, all the other
points that Bob pointed out. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. Colonel Belcher.
Colonel Belcher. Congressman, thank you very much. That has
been a topic of debate within our faculty and is very timely.
Let me begin by telling you what it is not. It is not high
salaries. Competitive salaries are important, but I have not
had a professor that the salary has been the deciding point
when it is in the competitive range with other salaries in the
area. What it is, is first the ability and the opportunity to
teach and get in the classroom. The professors want to be in
there with the students on a routine basis. To assist that, we
try to remove as much administrative overhead from the faculty
as possible, to move away from documenting each course to death
and allowing more freedom of how they develop their syllabi,
how they run their classes, and avoid micromanaging their work
in the classroom, freeing them up to spend time mentoring and
working with the students.
Secondly, it is the opportunity to research in their
fields. They love their fields of endeavor and want to go
deeper and broader into them. The more we can give them
opportunities, through time to do that, whether that be
sabbaticals, short-term research opportunities, involvement in
symposia, panels, lectures, and expanding faculty development,
it is to our benefit.
Also having topnotch research facilities, as we do at the
war colleges, is very beneficial. Expanding the outreach
between research centers would be beneficial so they get timely
information in their fields.
The research assistant program, we are looking at that
currently again to free them up and go deeper and broader into
their fields of study for research.
Two items that I would like to address that I think
distract from our recruiting effort, the first is, to some
degree, folks that are looking at the war college are self-
selecting. They have perceptions about what the war colleges
are and lack of academic freedom or lack of the topic matter
that they will be able to cover. They are still looking at our
fathers' war colleges, not the war colleges of today.
We need to broaden our strategic communications to more
civilian institutions, academic institutions, and think tanks
so they know what we are about, and we have a broader pool to
recruit from.
Similarly, it is up to us to then broaden that pool. When
job announcements go out, that they go to a broader perspective
and broader reach and professors that we might not consider
otherwise that will come in and challenge the curriculum,
challenge other professors with new and bold thoughts and
thereby make us all better, not continue to hire from the same
pool of professors that we may have in the past. That way I
think we also broaden the educational opportunity for our
students.
Thank you, sir.
General Forsyth. Sir, it has not always been easy to hire
folks to come to Maxwell, Alabama. But I will be honest with
you, I have only been there a year, but I have not seen the
pushback with respect to that. In fact, I have seen exactly the
opposite.
I don't know if it has to do with the economy or what have
you. But we are just in the process of hiring a political
economist that is coming to us from London, has his Harvard
Ph.D., and we get those kind of people routinely and our
faculty is littered with that kind of talent.
So I couldn't be more pleased with the folks that we have
and with the people that we get. Part of what we can offer at
Maxwell that is not necessarily available everywhere else,
except for maybe Washington, is we have all the schools there,
and we have the Air Force Research Institute there where people
can go and do research and publish and do those kinds of things
that many of them want to do.
So, I haven't seen it as an issue where I am at, and I am
very pleased with what we have.
Mr. Wittman. Admiral Wisecup.
Admiral Wisecup. Thank you, sir.
I benefit from changes that Admiral Stansfield Turner put
in place in the early 1970s. We have a very vibrant civilian
faculty, as well as our military folks. For example, on our
teaching side, we have 78 civilian faculty and 64 military, as
an example, and then we have 276 total, some of which are doing
research war gaming analysis, and they might teach an elective.
But my point is, of the 22 Strategy and Policy faculty, all are
Ph.D., from some of our most prestigious universities.
I have the option of tenure put in place by Admiral Turner.
We are certified by the New England Association of Schools and
Colleges. Other schools have taken our strategy curriculum.
Yale has a grand strategy course they are starting, Duke,
Princeton, all based on the Newport Strategy and Policy model.
I am trying to hire an academic dean right now. We are down to
about the last six candidates, any of whom could really do
this, a strong Ph.D. academic leader who can help us with
faculty. A vibrant series of chairs that we have in place. We
are establishing regional chairs.
The faculty tell me it is also the unique student body.
They know that they are not going to have to deal with a lot of
nonsense from our students. These are mid-career, motivated
students who are going places and coming right off the front
lines.
There is also a faculty development aspect to this which
one of my colleagues alluded to. We are on a trimester system,
so one of those trimesters, our faculty has the opportunity to
go and do their own research and do curriculum development and
things like that. We have a budget of almost--I think we have
spent over $600,000 on faculty development over the last couple
of years.
I am aware of the copyright issue. I think it is a question
of good policy. We have to watch that carefully. But I think we
are okay on that. And the fact that just recently we went to
.edu, for example, on the Web, tries to dispel some of what is
going on and show people, turn a light on some of the academic
work we are doing. There are a series of conferences.
Those are the attractors for good civilian qualified
faculty.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Wittman and I are trying real hard to miss
this vote, I think, so we are going to need to leave. We have
an abundance of questions left. We have kept you here for
almost two hours. We almost certainly will have some questions
for the record. The questions go slower because we have the six
of you.
We appreciate you all being here today. We appreciate your
testimony. I am sure we will have some follow-up questions,
both formally and informally in the future.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 4, 2009
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 4, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
June 4, 2009
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER
Dr. Snyder. The terms ``training'' and ``education'' seem to be
used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the
difference and what part of your curriculum is training and which part
is education?
General Steel. CJCSI 1800.01C, Officer Professional Military
Education Policy (OPMEP), dated 31 Jul 05, answers this plainly.
``The role of PME is to provide the education needed to
complement training, experience and self-improvement to produce
the most professionally competent individual possible. In its
broadest conception, education conveys general bodies of
knowledge and develops habits of mind applicable to a broad
spectrum of endeavors. At its highest levels and in its purest
form, education fosters breadth of view, diverse perspectives
and critical analysis, abstract reasoning, comfort with
ambiguity and uncertainty and innovative thinking, particularly
with respect to complex, non-linear problems. This contrasts
with training, which focuses on the instruction of personnel to
enhance their capacity to perform specific functions and tasks
. . . . Opportunities for substantial professional education
are relatively rare--particularly for the extended in-residence
education that produces the learning synergies that only come
from daily, face-to-face interaction with fellow students and
faculty. Consequently, the PME institutions should strive to
provide as pure and high quality education as feasible.''
National War College (NWC) concurs with this policy wholeheartedly
and adheres to it as much as possible. While some training takes place
at NWC as a by-product of our educational efforts, our curriculum is
focused completely on educating our students in the analysis and
development of national security strategies.
Admiral Hall. While some may use the terms ``training' and
`education' interchangeably, as the Commandant of the Industrial
College of the Armed Forces, I do not. In my view, training focuses on
the development and performance of specific tasks and skills, while the
proper focus of education is the human intellect, involving generalized
and abstract information that may not necessarily be tied to specific
tasks.
The goal of training is to prepare a leader or an organization to
execute defined tasks and includes repetition to improve the physical
performance of an individual or an organization to accomplish a
specific mission. Education seeks to stimulate human intellect and
inquiry to address the conceptual and abstract, and seek the ``why''
and ``what if '' of complex phenomena and issues. In other words,
education teaches how to think and what the questions are, while
training teaches what to think and what the answer ought to be.
At the Industrial College of the Armed Forces we educate. We
prepare leaders in terms of how to think about major, complex national
security challenges and issues and how to deal with strategic
challenges, problems, and issues that may [or may not] have outright
solutions.
Dr. Snyder. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants
and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes
to be a faculty member. Can you describe a typical faculty member's
day? Do you yourself teach or mentor individual students? a. Unlike
civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty
members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants,
or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, and
writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside
the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals,
military and civilian?
General Steel. Yes, I understand what it takes to be a faculty
member. If I was teaching a core course, my day would start before
lecture or class by going up to my seminar room and preparing the room
for my seminar. I also would be checking in on my committee to see how
my students are doing, and then work my way to lecture. During the
lecture's question and answer period, I would record my observations of
those students who belong to me and their performance in the question
and answer period. Following lecture, I would lead my seminar in
discussion and debate about the topic. This would take me through
lunch. In the afternoon, I would either finish preparing for my
elective and conduct my elective, or I would be recording observations
about seminar performance, preparing for the next day's activities,
and/or counseling/mentoring students. In addition, I very well might be
working on projects relative to my additional duties, which could
include coaching a sport, serving as faculty advisor to an
international fellow or American student, serving as faculty advisor to
a student committee, or serving as an NWC faculty representative to a
National Defense University (NDU) committee working on a university
project, such as the NDU Academic Plan. I could also be conducting
research or outreach.
I do not teach. I do attend every lecture and I sit in seminars to
observe both faculty and student performance. I do this routinely when
not participating in NDU-directed activities. For example, I
participate in all the international fellows' academic trips as a
mentor for them. Yes, I do mentor individual students.
The primary mission of the National War College is to teach our
students. That has been and still is my number one priority. When our
faculty members are teaching, a normal teaching load would be two core
courses and two electives, one each in the fall and the spring. That
would mean approximately 88 contact hours with students in each
semester, not counting a significant amount of classroom preparation,
normal duties such as advising and counseling students, serving as a
faculty mentor on a student committee (i.e. Morale and Welfare
Committee), or accomplishing another duty required to keep the College
running. All those expectations take significant amounts of faculty
time and effort. Even so, our faculty are still able to achieve
impressive levels of professional development, scholarship and
outreach. As an example, a partial list of the accomplishments of one
of our faculty members during this past year includes:
Advising the NDU President on issues concerning NDU
relations with other national defense colleges in his area of
expertise.
Participated in visit to NDU of an international CAPSTONE
course.
Participated in preparations and conduct of a
sophisticated war game at the Air University as an area expert.
Lectured to other NDU organization on multiple occasions.
Participated in a think tank project to survey future
maritime security issues in his area of expertise.
Participated in National Intelligence Council project on
future security scenarios in his area of expertise.
Participated in planning an OSD war game with nations in
his area of expertise.
Chapters published in a book on an international navy
(Naval War College).
Articles published in an online journal that specializes
in his area of expertise.
Lectured/led seminars at the United States Military
Academy, the Naval War College, and Georgetown University.
Reviewed manuscripts/books for University of Indiana
Press, Australia National University, and the Journal of Military
History.
Testified before a Congressional commission.
Participated in Army War College conference on the
capabilities of a regional military; CAPS-RAND Conference on the same
subject.
Chaired panel at a conference at the Naval War College.
Numerous media interviews.
This faculty member was able to achieve this high level of
professional service, research and writing while carrying a full
teaching load, advising three students and fulfilling other duties to
the College.
Research and writing are encouraged after faculty members perform
what I refer to as my first two priorities. First and foremost, we are
a teaching institution; this is our core mission and my number one
priority. My second priority and central focus is directed toward
mentoring and educating students and providing them honest evaluations
of their performance and making that extra effort to help them succeed.
Behind this emphasis, I provide faculty time for professional
development, whether that is faculty engaging in research and
scholarship to advance the educational mission of the College or time
to produce written materials tied to their research and field of
expertise. My overall expectations are that each faculty member remains
current and relevant in each of their disciplines.
Each faculty member is evaluated annually based on their
contributions to the College, including their professional development.
My department chairs under the leadership of the Dean of Faculty lead,
guide and supervise the development of their department faculty. Based
upon their observations and mentoring, they specifically address these
areas in the faculty annual evaluation report. It can be captured in
many ways, from the writing of a core course syllabus, to publication
of articles and books, to issuing papers requested from outside the
College.
Admiral Hall. The `typical' day for a faculty member is varied and
diverse. The many activities a faculty member may be involved with on
any given day include the following:
Preparing to teach a class session that day.
Teaching a core course lesson, program lesson (e.g.,
Regional Security Study, Exercise Program, or Industry Study), or
elective course.
Attending lectures or lunchtime ``brown bag'' guest
speaker presentations.
Meeting/mentoring with students (after class, with
students assigned to that faculty member as advisees for the academic
year, and/or with students conducting research in an area related to
the faculty member's expertise).
Attending student functions (student presentations on
countries or agencies, intramural sporting events, promotions, award
ceremonies, socials, etc.).
Attending teaching team, department, college committee or
faculty meetings.
Researching/preparing for subsequent class sessions (in
core course areas, program areas, or elective courses).
Participating in the Industry Studies program (seminar
and field studies sessions take place during January-May of each year)
which involves both preparatory work and the execution of the program
throughout the year. Because of the extensive number of industry
contacts and visits that must be arranged, updating the course content
continues throughout the entire year.
Performing outreach activities (consultations with DOD or
other executive branch departments and agencies, guest lecturing,
attendance and/or participation in think tank or department/agency
symposia, panel discussions, or forums).
Conducting long term faculty research.
Additional information:
Most faculty members have 2-3 core course lessons to
teach each week. Many of the faculty teach at least one elective each
semester.
Student functions, guest lectures, teaching team,
department, and college meetings do not occur each day, but some
combination of most of these activities occur on a weekly basis.
Outreach activities usually take place on days when
faculty members are not teaching, but not always.
Discretionary time typically is used for teaching
preparation (reviewing readings assigned to students, supplemental
faculty preparation readings, briefing slides, lecture notes, preparing
handouts, identifying and coping any additional supporting materials).
As indicated above, faculty must use whatever discretionary time is
available to conduct research. The imperative for the ICAF curriculum
to be up-to-date and relevant for the high level professionals who
constitute our student population requires everyone in the faculty to
maintain currency on vital operational and strategic policy concerns of
the country's leadership in national security affairs. As such, faculty
members constantly conduct research into contemporary developments and
policy issues during their discretionary time.
All faculty members are required to conduct research throughout the
academic year in order to keep the curriculum up-to-date and relevant.
Writing related to research is conducted by all faculty members in the
preparation of faculty teaching packets. Departments prepare a unique
faculty teaching packet for each lesson taught during the academic year
to ensure students in every seminar are exposed to the same concepts
and material (checked against OPMEP requirements), regardless of the
faculty member teaching the lesson. These departmental teaching packets
are written by the faculty in each department, and are updated
annually--requiring faculty to conduct research to ensure relevance and
timeliness related to contemporary national security issues.
Many faculty members also seek to conduct more traditional academic
research (books, journal articles, monographs, etc.) and ICAF has
sustained a respectable publication record every year. In some cases,
faculty with specific research projects or book/journal articles in
development are given partial relief from teaching duties to give them
additional time to work on completing their manuscript. ICAF also gives
an annual research award to faculty member(s) with notable research
accomplishments during an academic year.
Department Chairs at ICAF monitor their faculty to ensure that they
meet the college's expectations for research throughout the academic
year. On all Title X performance reports and annual evaluations,
research is specified as a requirement in support of curriculum
development and preparation of teaching packets. Evaluations of our
military faculty members are documented on their individual services'
performance evaluation forms and are therefore oriented toward staff
and command capabilities and do not specifically provide for evaluation
of research activities. Narrative statements in the performance reports
may mention significant research activities and publications as they
relate to the mission accomplishment.
As the Commandant, I frequently sit in on seminar class sessions
and contribute to the seminar discussions with my career, joint, and
interagency experience, and prompt students to consider a more
strategic level of evaluation of issues under discussion. My practice
of visiting the seminars, rather than teaching a particular course to
just one seminar, allows me to monitor the currency and quality of the
academic content, the quality of teaching, and ensure students are
being taught subject content at the appropriate level related to
strategic national security affairs.
I conduct an open-door policy at all times with regard to students,
faculty, and staff at ICAF. I regularly mentor individual students
through follow-up discussions resulting from my visits to seminar
rooms. I also seek out and engage students at ICAF and NDU academic and
social events, and these opportunities often result in one-on-one
discussions with students about their ICAF experience, career
aspirations, or even family issues. In particular, I emphasize
interaction and mentoring with the International Fellows. I believe it
is critical that the International Fellows have access to senior
leaders to discuss American culture, strategic thought, interests, and
values, and that they undergo a positive learning and living experience
during their year at ICAF.
Dr. Snyder. Does having a master's degree program at these schools
detract from the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy
to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the
academic instead of professional education?
General Steel. Civilian graduate education and professional
military education serve different purposes and therefore are
underpinned by different educational dynamics. The danger with having a
master's program is the possibility of becoming seduced by the dynamics
of civilian graduate education to the detriment of the PME mission.
Examples would be: defining the purpose of the school as a graduate
research institution rather than a teaching college; gauging faculty
quality by their research and publication rather than their subject
matter expertise and teaching prowess; and adopting civilian student
assessment practices rather than developing a student assessment
process tailored to the distinct characteristics of your student body
and mission. NDU is particularly susceptible to this possibility due to
the wide variety of missions its numerous components have and the
natural bureaucratic tendencies to make everyone in the University look
the same. Some NWC students benefit professionally from the opportunity
to earn a master's degree as part of their PME experience at the NWC
and as long as a master's program is important to the Chairman, the
College will continue to have a master's program. However, having a
master's program does not add anything to the ability to accomplish the
PME mission. The National War College's experience has been that having
a master's program has neither increased academic rigor, nor sharpened
the relevance of the curriculum, nor improved the effectiveness of
student and program assessment. The Process for Accreditation of Joint
Education (PAJE) has and continues to ensure academic rigor, a sharp
and relevant curriculum and effective student and program assessments.
A separate NWC Board of Visitors that could provide effective oversight
of these two different and potentially opposing educational dynamics
might be very beneficial in ensuring the accomplishment of the
College's PME mission.
Admiral Hall. Having a master's degree program (and the
accompanying accreditation process) does not detract from the PME
mission. ICAF is first and foremost a JPME institution and everything
done at the college flows from that mission. We find that academic
standards reinforce the quality of the college's execution of the JPME
mission. Academic standards also reinforce the credibility of the
academic aspects of the curriculum with regard to quality, rigor, and
professional conduct by faculty.
Dr. Snyder. Do all of your students receive master's degrees--why
or why not? What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you?
Please be specific, is it more important to have an advanced degree in
specific areas like international relations, political science, a
regional study, or military or political history than it is to have a
PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering?
General Steel. Not all the students receive master's degrees.
Students must complete all the academic requirements in order to
qualify for the degree. This past year we had a very capable American
student who missed an inordinate amount of class time due to an illness
and he was incapable of completing the academic requirements. He was
dropped from the course. Another example was a student who was pulled
out of the course for a real world critical requirement and
subsequently did not qualify for completion of the degree. We have a
number of international fellows who do not meet the prerequisites for
the master's or are incapable of passing the requirements to an
acceptable level. These are all examples of students that do not
receive a master's degree. We do, however, have a robust remediation
program to provide every opportunity for a student to achieve success
and complete the degree program.
When considering a Service's nomination for a faculty position at
the National War College we look for the following in their file.
Minimum Requirements:
Grade 06
Command at the 05 level
Senior Service College graduate
Master's degree
Completed JPME II
Staff experience at the 3-Star level or higher
Enhanced Qualifications
Joint Qualified
Joint/Combined staff experience
Operational experience OIF/OEF
Previous teaching experience at undergraduate or graduate
level
Ph.D.
Our policy is that all full-time civilian faculty we recruit and
hire under Title 10 authority must have Ph.D.s. Given that, it is
essential that their degrees be in a discipline relevant to national
security strategy since those individuals form the backbone of our
faculty's academic expertise.
Admiral Hall. Nearly all ICAF students receive a master's degree.
Often, one or two International Fellows receive a ``diploma'' rather
than a master's degree. International Fellows sometimes elect not to
seek a master's degree for personal reasons (including because they
already possess a PhD) or are not eligible to receive a master's degree
because they do not possess a bachelor's degree or equivalent
educational experience. NDU uses a private company also used by other
area universities to determine whether educational experience
constitutes the equivalence of a bachelor's degree. The rare U.S.
student who has only received a diploma usually lacks a bachelor's
degree (an extremely rare occurrence) or fails to complete some portion
of the academic program due to illness or other circumstances.
Diploma students (international or U.S.) participate in all regular
educational experiences at ICAF, but are permitted to submit outlines
in lieu of written papers for writing assignments.
Top quality in uniformed faculty means a senior JPME school
graduate, broad operational and joint experience (ideally, at the
strategic level) that supports the subject areas of the curriculum,
adult education teaching experience (whenever possible), and someone
with a desire to enhance the quality of the curriculum and education of
the students.
ICAF prefers to have military faculty members (or executive branch
department faculty) with an advanced degree (masters or PhD) in a
subject area related to the substantive areas of the curriculum. In
some cases, sufficient operational and joint experience (particularly
at the strategic level) can sufficiently compensate for lack of a
relevant advanced degree. On the other hand, faculty who lack both
substantive experience and a relevant advanced degree (e.g., possess an
engineering or math degree) typically experience difficulties in
learning and effectively teaching course content, and establishing
credibility with the students.
Dr. Snyder. What does ``top quality'' mean for civilian faculty?
Please be specific. a. Does not having tenure affect how professors
treat ``academic freedom''?
General Steel. Title 10, civilian faculty at the National War
College are chosen with great care. Based on the needs of the College,
the Commandant promulgates specific position announcements that
initiate the faculty selection process. These announcements are put out
nationwide through USA JOBS, the OPM website, and advertised in
journals and other periodicals frequented by academics. The Commandant
develops highly qualifying criteria for selection and these criteria
are used in selection committee deliberations and in final selections.
The Commandant gives guidance to the selection committee chairman,
receives progress reports from him, and out-briefs him when the full
committee is prepared to make its recommendations. In one recent
selection, which had 175 applicants, these were the actual highly
qualifying criteria used:
Substantial academic or professional background in
political science, history, strategic studies or related fields to
allow teaching across a broad range of subjects in the core and
elective curriculum.
Demonstrated teaching experience, either full or part
time, at the university and preferably graduate level.
Demonstrate willingness and ability to accept major
administrative responsibilities in an academic or other setting;
willingness to participate in the governance and curriculum development
of the National War College.
Practical experience in policy, legal, intelligence or
military areas related to the development and implementation of
national security strategy and policy.
Substantial knowledge of, demonstrated scholarly
achievement in, and/or policy experience with one or more of the
following subjects related to the broad focus of strategic studies:
Africa, China, Russia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East,
counterinsurgency, the changing character and conduct of war, and
security assistance, stability, post-conflict, and peacekeeping
operations.
Based on their review of the materials submitted by the applicants,
the committee develops a list of fully qualified applicants and from
them, a short list of best qualified applicant-interviewees, holding
closely to the highly qualifying criteria throughout their work. After
a detailed committee interview that includes a ``job talk'' and a
discussion on teaching strategy for a particular curricular topic, the
committee makes its recommendations to the Commandant, who in turn,
makes his recommendations to the President of National Defense
University, who ultimately decides on every hire.
This intense process has produced a first-rate teaching faculty
with a very high professional standing. With two lawyers who hold juris
doctorates on staff, the remaining 22 Title 10 faculty of the National
War College is composed of professionals with doctoral degrees.
Additionally, the Title 10 faculty boasts retired military and foreign
service officers, a former deputy under secretary of defense, a former
deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a former National
Intelligence Officer for Europe. This complements nicely the great
expertise of our rotating Department of Defense, State Department and
other agency faculty.
Not having tenure does not affect how the National War College
treats academic freedom. The Officer Professional Military Education
Policy of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, directs the President,
National Defense University, to establish a climate of academic freedom
within the university that fosters and properly encourages thorough and
lively academic debate and examination of national security issues.
NDU's commitment to academic freedom is published in NWC faculty and
student handbooks, as well as NDU Regulation 360-1. University leaders
and College faculty continually review these polices, ensuring academic
freedom is protected and thrives in and out of the seminar room.
Admiral Hall. ICAF seeks ``top quality'' civilian faculty members
with the following attributes:
Commitment to the ICAF mission.
Ability to teach effectively as a subject matter expert
in an adult education setting.
Broad, relevant operational and joint or interagency
substantive experience, preferably at the strategic level.
A substantial understanding of strategy and strategic
national security matters.
A substantial understanding of joint logistics or
knowledge related to the resource component of national security.
An ability to work in a joint, interagency, multi-
disciplinary setting and contribute to the synthesis of the various
components into an integrated curriculum and educational experience.
Understands how his/her course is integrated into the overall ICAF
curriculum and can teach effectively in support of an integrated
curriculum.
Actively supports policies promoting organizational
effectiveness in executing the ICAF educational mission (e.g., high
quality grading of student papers and student classroom contributions;
meets deadlines for returning student papers, submitting grades, and
completing student performance reports; respects students and is active
and available as intellectual guide and counselor, etc.).
Actively conducts research on strategy, strategic
national security affairs, and the resource component of national
security in support of the ICAF mission, continuous curriculum
development, and faculty development.
Practices intellectual honesty and exercises critical
self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting
knowledge in support of the ICAF mission.
Not in my opinion. The American Association of University
Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure
(with 1970 Interpretive Comments) clearly states that faculty members
``are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of
results,'' but it also states that faculty members have ``special
obligations.'' One of those special obligations is that they ``should
exercise appropriate restraint.'' ICAF faculty members understand that
they are U.S. government officials and are expected to behave
responsibly with regard to their stated or written opinions. ICAF
faculty have full freedom to make public statements and publish
articles which may be critical of U.S. policy, but they also recognize
that as NDU faculty members they must do so in a responsible way, one
that does not undermine U.S. policy. Any U.S. policy may be analyzed in
terms of its strengths and weaknesses, and constructive criticism may
be usefully applied to any policy debate.
I believe that having tenure would have no impact on the practice
of academic freedom at ICAF. The obligation for responsible research,
statements, and publications as government officials applies whether
faculty have tenure or not.
Finally, a policy of tenure would interfere with the ability of the
Commandant to effectively execute the mission of the college. In order
to maintain the quality and currency of the curriculum in support of
evolving national security and resource challenges, the Commandant must
be able to bring in new faculty with recent policy or operational/
strategic experience, or more in-depth areas of expertise when needed
to maintain the high quality of the curriculum and the faculty.
Dr. Snyder. Since you don't have tenure, what is the process for
renewal and non-renewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the
system? Do professors know six months before they are up for renewal
whether they will be renewed, for how long, and why? In a tenure system
people think the faculty members have all the power, in a no-tenure
system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How do you avoid
the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your
civilian faculty don't have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees
they do have and why they were hired.
General Steel. The National War College follows the policies and
procedures for renewal and non-renewal as outlined in NDU Regulation
690-4, Personnel-Civilian Employment Under 10 USC Sec. 1595, dated 4
August 2005.
The NDU regulation covering renewal and non-renewal are available
for any faculty member to review. Written and verbal communication with
the faculty member being considered for either renewal or non-renewal
adheres to appropriate privacy act policies.
The National War College follows the requirements for renewal which
are very clear in the NDU regulation. Below is an excerpt from Appendix
C, paragraph 7 of NDU Regulation 690-4.
``At least twelve months prior to the expiration of a Title 10
employee's current term of employment, the Academic Dean/Dean/Director
must consider the question of renewal using such internal procedures as
are deemed fair and reasonable. At least ten months prior to the
expiration of term, the Commandant/Director will forward the renewal
packet through proper channels at NDU. Employees should receive final
official notification at least eight months before their current
employment term ends.
If the Academic Dean/Dean/Director/Vice President determines that
he/she will not recommend renewal, he/she should forward the
recommendation through the commandant/Director to the NDU-P for the
final decision at least 6 months in advance of the expiration of the
current term when possible. Once a final decision is made by the NDU-P,
the Title 10 employee should be notified in writing. No faculty member
is entitled to renewal, and non-renewal at the expiration of an
employment term is not an involuntary termination of employment.
If the Commandant/Director decides that he/she should renew the
employee's term of employment and the Title 10 employee agrees, the
Commandant/Director will request approval for the renewal and provide
the NDU staff and NDU-P with the following information:
Basis for the proposed renewal.
The employee's performance appraisals for the current
term of employment.
Length of the proposed renewal term.
The employee's current pay and benefit costs.
Proposed academic title and pay level with justification
for renewal at a higher or lower title or pay level, based on the
component peer review \1\ input to the Commandant/Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Peer Review Process--Each college/component will establish a
peer review process for faculty renewal requests. Each college/
component will be afforded wide latitude in developing a relevant and
rigorous process and will forward annually to HRD each July its
methodology. NDU general guidance is that the process should include a
panel of peers. The panel will consist of an odd number (minimum of 3)
of qualified faculty members to evaluate the renewal request and
validate the academic title recommendation. The packet going forward
through channels to the NDU-P will include the panel recommendation
along with the Commandant's/College Director's independent
recommendation and a Provost/AA recommendation. If the Provost/AA
recommendation is different than the Commandant/Director's, the
Commandant/Director will be notified prior to forwarding to NDU-P for
signature. The general guidance is that the peer review panels should
review the candidate's career record and strictly apply academic title
rigor including but not limited to academic degree credentials,
teaching experience, professional experience, and scholarship.
If the NDU-P approves renewal, HRD will notify the organization of
the approval and process the renewal 30 days prior to the effective
date.''
Extremes and appearances of arbitrariness are avoided by adhering
to the procedures as outlined in NDU Regulation 690-4. NDU Regulation
690-4 includes a section concerning employee grievances. The DOD
Administrative Grievance System (AGS) DoD 1400.25-M applies to Title 10
employees at the National Defense University.
All of the Title 10 faculty members currently serving on the
faculty of the National War College have either a Ph.D. or a JD.
Admiral Hall. ICAF's policies regarding Title 10 faculty operates
under the following applicable regulation: 10 USC 1595; Secretary of
Defense Memorandum, 23 April 1990, ``Delegation of Title 10
Authority'', AR 690-4, NDU Title 10, and NDU REGULATION 690-4, revised
4 August 2005. Under this regulation, newly hired faculty members have
a one-year probationary contract. Subsequently, faculty members are
normally renewed for one to three years, with three years being the
most common term of renewal. ICAF department chairs make
recommendations to me through the Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs
with regard to contract renewals one year prior to the expiration of
the current contract. If the ICAF leadership decides not to renew a
faculty member because of performance issues or need to hire faculty
with different areas of expertise or more recent policy experience, the
college's policy states the that faculty member is notified one year
prior to the expiration of the contract; NDU policy requires 6 months
``if practicable,'' but no less than 60 days. NDU Title 10 policy
states that ``No faculty member is entitled to renewal, and non-renewal
at the expiration of an employment term is not an involuntary
termination of employment.'' It is the policy of the current ICAF
leadership to discuss with faculty members why their contract is not
being renewed. The criteria mentioned in the previous question related
to the characteristics of a ``top quality'' faculty member also are
used in evaluating faculty for contract renewal decisions. Additional
criteria would include expertise and currency with evolving national
security issues, effectiveness as an instructor, contributions to
college programs, adherence to ICAF and NDU administrative procedures
and requirements, and ability to work effectively with other faculty
and staff.
NDU's current 690-4 Title 10 policy and ICAF policies for
implementation are contained in the ICAF Faculty Handbook (last updated
in 2008) which is distributed to all ICAF faculty. Discussions with
faculty members about reasons for renewal or non-renewal of contracts
are considered personnel issues and are treated confidentially.
As stated above, ICAF notifies faculty members as to whether or not
they will be renewed 12 months prior to the expiration of their
contract. Faculty members who will be renewed are made aware of the
renewal period being recommended to the Commandant. Faculty who are not
being renewed are notified 12 months prior to the expiration of their
contract to provide adequate time for seeking alternate employment if
that is desired.
As the Commandant, I am responsible to the CJCS for the adherence
to the OPMEP and the proper execution of the college's mission in
support of the nation's security. Faculty members accept employment at
ICAF understanding that the composition of the faculty must be aligned
with the needs of the nation and college's mission. Nevertheless,
faculty at the college exercise considerable power in the college with
regard to interpreting its mission and determining how it is executed.
I rely upon my faculty (many of whom have been at the college for many
years) to advise me and the Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs about
curriculum, and the fairness of NDU and ICAF personnel policies and
regulations. Curriculum development, reviews, and revisions all take
place through the faculty within the academic departments and are
annually briefed to me for my review and approval.
ICAF also has had in place for many years a ``Faculty Committee.''
This Faculty Committee is elected by the entire faculty (excluding any
with positions involving annual Title 10 performance evaluations such
as department chairs, deputy chairs, and Deans) annually. Candidates
are nominated by the entire faculty (excluding those mentioned above)
and elected by secret ballot. Faculty Committee members serve for two
to three years. The Faculty Committee functions as a sounding board for
the Commandant and Deans with regard to policy matters and any issue
that may affect faculty members--including personnel policies and
regulations. The committee often is called upon to draft policy
recommendations on issues that affect the faculty and to review policy
changes being proposed by NDU. Likewise, the committee also provides a
conduit for any faculty member to raise issues or concerns with the
ICAF leadership without revealing their identity if that is their wish.
I believe that regular dialogue with the faculty through a variety
of mechanisms helps to ensure both faculty and I thoroughly discuss
policy and curriculum issues of importance to the college and its
mission. I meet several times each week with my Deans and Chief of
Staff, Associate Deans, International Affairs Advisor, and Director of
Institutional Research as my primary advisory staff. I have held a
series of lunches with small groups of 5-6 faculty members to ensure
that I know each faculty member personally and to provide a more
intimate setting in which they can discuss with me any issues of
concern to them.
ICAF also holds regular faculty meetings throughout the academic
year in which faculty are encouraged to raise issues of concern to them
to the Faculty Committee. ICAF also has an Academic Policy and
Curriculum Committee composed of all department chairs, program
directors, and the chair of the Faculty Committee which review and
advise me on potential major changes to policies or the curriculum.
ICAF also conducts an annual off-site or on-site meeting to promote
in-depth discussions among the faculty about curriculum issues. A
recent faculty off-site constituted working groups covering the
following topics:
Facilitating quality student evaluations and writing
feedback.
ICAF Continuing Education: Effective Teaching.
Industry Studies Program relationship with Micro-
economics and Economics of Industry.
Preparing Students for Policy Planning and Policy Making.
Strategies for implementing improvements and change at
ICAF.
The role of Regional Security Studies in the ICAF
curriculum.
The role of exercises in the ICAF curriculum.
Four of ICAF's 45 Title 10 faculty members do not possess Ph.Ds.
Information on their backgrounds, degrees and position at ICAF is
listed below.
1. The first faculty member is a long time part-time instructor in
the Military Strategy and Logistics Department. He is a retired USA
Colonel and former U.S. Senate staffer hired in 1995 for his experience
in military strategy, Latin America, and DOD-Congressional relations.
He holds an MS in Public Administration from Shippensburg University.
2. The second faculty member is a former USAF pilot whose civilian
career included serving as the lead aircraft procurement appropriation
analyst for the Secretary of the Navy Comptroller and manager of the
FAA's capital budget division, among other acquisition and budget
positions. Hired at ICAF as a professor in the Acquisition Department,
he has served as the Course Director for the Acquisition Core Course,
faculty leader of the Aircraft Industry Study, and is currently the
Director of ICAF's Industry Studies Program. He was hired because of
his acquisition expertise and knowledge of the aircraft industry
sector. He holds a Master of Public Administration degree from The
George Washington University and a Master of Science degree in National
Resource Management from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He
is currently completing his dissertation toward a PhD in Public
Administration and Public Policy.
3. The third faculty member is a retired USN Supply Corps Captain.
She was hired to teach military strategy and logistics, and acquisition
because of her military experience and educational credentials. She is
a distinguished graduate of the Wharton School of Business, University
of Pennsylvania, earning a Master of Business Administration degree as
well as being a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces
and the Senior Executive Program at the Kellogg School of Business,
Northwestern University. She is currently completing her dissertation
toward a PhD in Public Administration and Public Policy.
4. The fourth faculty member is a retired Canadian Forces Colonel
and a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is the former Comptroller of the
Army for Canadian Forces and has extensive experience in strategic
financial planning. He was hired as a professor in the Economics
Department, as an Industry Studies Program faculty member, and to add
additional non-U.S. perspectives to strategic national security
affairs. He is the former Canadian Forces Chair at ICAF, and holds an
M.A. in Public Administration from The George Washington University, an
ICAF diploma (pre-accredited M.A. period), and currently is completing
his dissertation for a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Public
Policy.
Dr. Snyder. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire
``younger'' PhDs. Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or
practical experience to be able to hold their own with the caliber and
seniority of students you have? Does it mean you have to push out
``older professors'' who may be performing well in order to bring on
younger ones?
General Steel. Youth is not criteria of evaluation when hiring a
new Title 10 faculty member. In our last Title 10 hiring effort, I gave
the following guidance to the search committee chair.
``The candidates should be judged against the following criteria:
Substantial academic or professional background in
political science, history, strategic studies, economics, sociology,
anthropology or related fields to allow teaching across a broad range
of subjects in the core and elective curriculum.
Extensive full-time professional teaching experience at
the university level and preferably graduate level, particularly in a
seminar environment.
Demonstrates willingness and ability to accept major
administrative responsibilities in an academic or other environment to
include directing core and elective course; willingness to participate
in the governance and curriculum development of the National War
College.
Practical experience in policy, legal, intelligence, or
military areas related to the development and implementation of
national security strategy and policy.
Substantial knowledge of, demonstrated scholarly
achievement in, and or policy experience with on or more of the
following specific subjects related to the broad focus of strategic
studies; Africa, China, Russia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East,
counterinsurgency, the changing character and conduct of war, and
security assistance, stability, post conflict and peacekeeping
operations.''
The National War College does not pursue ``younger'' professors and
hence does not deliberately look to push out ``older professors.''
Admiral Hall. The answer to this question depends upon what is
meant by ``younger'' faculty or PhDs. ICAF believes that hiring faculty
in their twenties or early thirties is problematic. I strongly believe
that the faculty at ICAF needs ``seasoning or practical experience'' to
hold their own with the students. ICAF subscribes to this judgment for
two reasons. First, the mission of ICAF is to educate senior military
officers and government officials about strategy, strategic national
security affairs, and the resource component of national security.
ICAF's experience is that in order to teach about these topics, faculty
must have had applied experience in these areas. A student population
of professionals who average approximately twenty years of professional
experience expects to be educated by a faculty who also has
considerable experience with the national security matters they are
teaching. Faculty who cannot speak from experience about joint,
interagency, and national security issues lack credibility in the
classroom.
Second, ICAF's experience (and related academic research on
stratified leadership) indicates that years of experience, knowledge,
and personal maturity are required before one can conceptualize at the
strategic level. Both this research and ICAF's experience argue for
hiring mature individuals with sufficient experience and maturity.
``Pushing out'' older professors may be necessary in at least two
circumstances. First, the normal progression of aging affects the
capabilities of individuals at different rates and in different ways.
Aging may affect an individual's ability to maintain a full activity
load, fully understand changing events and dynamics, or new concepts
and ways of thinking. An objective assessment of diminishing capacity
should be considered legitimate grounds for non-renewal of a contract.
Second, faculty must work hard to maintain currency in national
security affairs, policy issues, interagency dynamics, and bureaucratic
processes. ICAF currently has numerous faculty whose experience as
executive branch officials or military officers date back to the Cold
War. Many have sustained active outreach and consultative programs to
keep themselves up to date (and develop new areas of expertise) in the
post-9/11 national security environment. However, it is incumbent upon
ICAF to regularly refresh its continuing Title 10 faculty with
individuals who possess more recent operational, joint, interagency,
and policy experience in order to ensure currency in the curriculum and
credibility with the students.
Dr. Snyder. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and
student mixes while the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other
mix. Are the faculty and student mixes dictated for the various
institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate for Congress
to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA FY
2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a
requirement to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and
National must send ``50% plus one'' graduates to joint assignments. Is
this still appropriate? Should Service schools have some kind of
requirement?
General Steel. 1) A critical component of joint education is
acculturation--ensuring officers from the various Services understand
the professional cultures and warfighting perspectives of their sister
Services, have trust and confidence in the professional expertise and
integrity of officers from the other Services, and are able to work
effectively in a fully joint organization where each Service is
represented with essentially equal weight. Acculturation cannot be
taught well in a classroom; it must be experienced. Students must live
and work in a fully joint environment where all the Services have
approximately equal representation, and their debates over the best
ways to orchestrate all the capabilities of the various Services must
take place on neutral ground where no Service has an institutional
advantage (such as at a Service college). Thus the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3
Service mix for military students and faculty is absolutely appropriate
for the joint schools, which exist solely to provide a cadre of
officers with special expertise in joint operations, and therefore they
should aim to provide the highest quality joint education possible.
2) Service Colleges, on the other hand, exist first and foremost to
provide a cadre of officers with special expertise in Service
operations, and thus the military student and faculty mixes at those
schools should favor representation from the host Service. Since joint
expertise and perspective constitutes a critical secondary goal for
Service schools, however, non-host Service students and faculty should
be included in the mix to the maximum extent possible that their
numbers can be supported by the non-host Services and their numbers
will not degrade the focus on host Service expertise that must remain
the principal purpose of each Service College. From that perspective,
the 60/40 mix seems reasonable.
No, not if the aim is to provide the highest quality joint
education possible before allowing an officer to earn designation as a
joint specialist. As discussed above, acculturation is critical to
high-quality joint education, and substantive acculturation can only be
accomplished on neutral ground with equal representation of all the
Services in both the military student body and the military faculty.
Since the sole purpose of joint education is to prepare officers
for work in joint organizations, it only makes sense to send the bulk
of their graduates to joint assignments once they have graduated from a
joint educational school. If Service schools are going to continue to
be allowed to award JPME II credit to their graduates (i.e., if they
are going to be seen as preparing officers satisfactorily for work in
joint organizations), then it would seem only reasonable that some
significant proportion of their graduates also be designated for joint
assignments. A possible danger of only ICAF and National sending the
bulk of their graduates to joint organizations is officers viewing
attendance at ICAF and National as detrimental to their careers due to
more restrictive assignment opportunities after graduation.
Admiral Hall. I believe that the faculty and student mix for ICAF
is not just appropriate, but is, in fact, optimal. ICAF carefully
builds each of its twenty student seminar groups with a balanced mix of
military services and civilians (a typical seminar consists of 3 USA, 3
USAF, 3 USN/USMC (sometimes USCG), one International Fellow, three DOD
civilians, and three non-DOD civilians--sometimes including one of 10
Industry Fellows in the class). The 1/3 service student allocation to
ICAF permits this balanced mix for all seminars and maximizes every
student's exposure to joint, interagency, international, and often
private sector industry perspectives. Likewise, the 1/3 service faculty
mix allows for teaching teams to maximize the pairing of faculty from
different services and civilian agencies for each student seminar--
yielding an even greater exposure to joint and interagency experience
and education.
Whether it was appropriate for the Service senior schools to award
JPME II credit is dependent upon the criteria that the CJCS and the
Congress believe is sufficient to constitute a Joint Qualified Officer.
Because of the emphasis on joint and interagency education at ICAF
(and NWC), it is appropriate for a large percentage of their graduates
to be sent to joint assignments. ICAF believes that the 50%+1 rule
further promotes the objectives of Goldwater-Nichols and ensures
greater jointness throughout DOD. Service school requirements should be
based upon CJCS, Service, and Congressional determination of needs,
bearing in mind that such a requirement would further promote jointness
throughout DOD.
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes rigor in your educational program?
Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams?
Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if
so, of what length? Does rigor require increased contact time and less
``white space'' or vice versa?
General Steel. The National War College recognizes that academic
rigor is a process, not an end state. Every aspect of the educational
experience contributes to the level of academic rigor present in our
program and only ongoing program assessment ensures that rigor is
sustained.
In our assessment process, we have identified three primary
indicators of academic rigor.
1) A challenging, dynamic curriculum.
The College has established a curriculum review and renewal process
to ensure continued relevance and currency in support of our college
mission. Program and course objectives, which directly support the
mission, are written at the higher levels of cognitive engagement to
support a curriculum that challenges NWC students to apply, analyze and
synthesize their learning. Feedback from multiple sources--students,
faculty, graduates, and senior leaders--is a critical component of our
continuous improvement process. The internal curriculum coordinating
committee reviews all feedback and provides a venue for the discussion
of curriculum changes. Finally, periodic self studies for the Program
for the Accreditation of Joint Education and Middle States Commission
are welcomed as a means of self-reflection and peer feedback.
2) Students and faculty actively engaged in the learning process.
The seminar forms the foundation of student learning at the
National War College. A commitment to maintaining small seminar size,
13 students for core instruction, ensures that active learning
prevails. This small size and multiple resectionings allow each student
to be constantly challenged by a diversity of ideas and perspectives.
For approximately 70% of the time, NWC students interact with their
peers and faculty in critical thinking and creative problem solving
activities such as analysis of case studies and exercises. While the
remaining time is primarily devoted to lectures and panels, these are
not purely passive activities; students engage with and frequently
challenge the complex ideas presented in follow-on question and answer
sessions and seminar discussions. Because our experienced and diverse
faculty are key participants in this dynamic learning environment,
maintaining faculty excellence is a priority. To enhance an already
robust program of new faculty orientation, faculty seminar leader
qualification criteria were adopted in AY 2009. Seminar leader
excellence is further bolstered by numerous faculty workshops and
opportunities for faculty improvement based on peer and leadership
observations and feedback.
3) High standards and expectations for all participants.
The National War College students are evaluated against high
standards that are clearly defined and consistently applied by teaching
faculty. These standards are widely promulgated in the student handbook
and NWC Standard Operating Procedures and faculty ratings are monitored
to ensure consistent application. In addition to ongoing feedback in
the seminar environment, students receive a minimum of 13 formal
evaluations during the academic year which provide them an accurate
picture of their achievement level and identify areas for improvement.
A student who fails to meet the standards is involved in an
individually tailored remedial process.
Like many professional schools, the National War College maintains
a high level of rigor without the use of A -F letter grades. Instead,
we assign final course grades of ``Pass'' or ``Fail' to certify that
students have met--or failed to meet--our high college standards. Our
continued use of pass/fail grades is based on the decision, validated
over time, that this system maximizes learning for our mid-career
students. Clearly, the lack of competition for letter grades has not
resulted in a decline in the motivation of our students. On the
contrary, the requirement to engage with their highly respected peers
and faculty in small, active seminars continues to motivate NWC
students to achieve at the highest levels. Removing the unnecessary
grading pressure that can keep learners from taking productive risks
frees them, in fact challenges them, to explore new areas rather than
playing to their strengths in order to earn a grade.
While students receive ``Pass'' or ``Fail'' as final course grades,
it is critical that faculty consistently measure students against the
performance standards and provide them with a clear picture of their
performance. NWC has successfully used ``Above,'' ``Met'' or ``Below''
ratings to let students know how their mastery of subject matter,
preparation, leadership and interaction, writing and oral presentations
measure up to the National War College standards. Equally important,
however, are the candid, constructive faculty comments that support
these ratings. Taken together, the ratings and the narrative give
students comprehensive, meaningful feedback that they can use to gauge
their progress through the curriculum and to challenge themselves to
sustain or improve performance.
Although we do not assign letter grades, we do have a process in
place to encourage and recognize superior performance. Faculty identify
the top students in each core and elective seminar and, in core
seminars, the writer of the best paper. These students earn points in
the NWC Distinguished Graduate program, which is designed to identify
the top 10% of the class, those students who have demonstrated that
they are NWC's outstanding students of strategy based on observed
performance throughout the year. Excellence in writing is also
recognized in the end-of-year writing awards program.
While many institutions of higher education use written exams to
hold students accountable for their learning and ensure a high level of
rigor, there are other equally valid methods to challenge students and
assess learning at the graduate level. Rather than written exams, NWC
faculty use a variety of techniques to engage the students and provide
direct assessments of their learning. With small seminars, faculty are
able to assess the student's mastery of course material on a daily
basis and give immediate feedback. Within the seminar environment,
exercises, oral presentations, case study analysis and written
assignments that are directly related to the course objectives provide
multiple opportunities for faculty to observe and document student
learning. Candid feedback from both faculty and peers motivates
students to excel in these dynamic sessions.
In addition to seminar-related assessments, NWC students
participate in oral evaluations in both fall and spring semesters.
These evaluations engage two faculty members and one student in a 45-
minute colloquy in which they are asked to integrate and apply what
they have learned in the core program to the analysis of specific
national security issues. These sessions enable faculty to evaluate an
individual student's progress in more depth than would generally be
possible in a written exam. NWC students have also reported that the
oral evaluations provide an excellent opportunity for honest self-
assessment. Students who fail to meet the oral evaluation standards are
immediately engaged in a remedial process that is tailored specifically
to their needs.
NWC students are required to demonstrate the ability to analyze
complex problems, develop solutions and support those solutions with
well-formed arguments. While writing analytical papers is not
necessarily a requirement for rigor, it is one of the methods by which
we assess our students' ability to do this and, as a consequence, is a
factor in maintaining academic rigor at NWC. The rigor is derived,
however, not from the paper length, but from the level of cognitive
engagement required by the assignment. The core writing assignments, of
approximately 8-10 pages in length each, are developed by the seven
course directors to directly support the assigned learning objectives.
Students receive detailed feedback that addresses the quality of
critical thinking and analysis evident in their writing as well as the
clarity and logic of their arguments. On average, an NWC student writes
approximately 80 pages in the core and elective courses during the
academic year.
The National War College also offers options for those students who
wish to engage in more in-depth research. Students who are accepted
into the Research Fellow Program (usually 3 to 5 per class) receive
faculty mentoring and time to pursue year-long research. Others can
request the opportunity to combine papers for two core courses or a
core course and elective to facilitate a longer paper; in AY 2009,
approximately 15% of the class took advantage of this option. Finally,
students can register for an advanced writing elective and, with the
sponsorship of a faculty member, earn two graduate credits for a
research paper in lieu of an elective course.
At the graduate level, minimizing scheduled contact time is
essential so that students can read, write and reflect on the ideas
presented in lectures and seminar. The National War College has
established an average of 13 contact hours per week as the standard
and, based on experience, this is the maximum number that should be
scheduled for our academic program. It is a challenging schedule but
strikes the correct balance between engaging students with peers and
faculty and providing them adequate time outside of class to think
critically about their learning. This is also in line with other
graduate programs, which frequently require only 9 to 12 contact hours
per week for fulltime study. While recognizing the importance of
limiting contact hours, the college has faced an ongoing challenge with
the scheduling of NDU special lectures which, while of value, take up
the ``white space'' that we know that our students need to maximize
their learning.
Admiral Hall. ICAF believes that rigor does require the writing of
research or analytical papers in order to be able to assess the quality
of student thinking, whether they understand the conceptual material of
the ICAF curriculum, whether they are able to devise and implement
strategies, and whether they understand and can evaluate the strategic
level of national security affairs. ICAF strongly believes that if a
student cannot write his or her thoughts coherently on paper, then the
student does not have a coherent understanding of the concepts being
assessed. The same kind of assessment may be achieved through written
essay questions, but ICAF prefers 5 to 7 page papers of analysis,
conceptualization, and argument in order to evaluate whether students
can produce complex, multi-issue papers that are coherent, well-
organized, and well-argued. ICAF believes that 5 to 7 page papers test
research, analysis, conceptualization, and argumentation skills on a
variety of topics during the academic year and avoid limiting students
to researching, analyzing, and arguing recommendations for only a few
topics in a couple of more extensive and lengthy research papers.
ICAF believes that written exams of multiple choice or short answer
questions would only assess whether students remembered key concepts
and facts, and not whether they could organize them into a strategy, a
coherent multi-dimensional analysis, or a complex and well argued
policy paper.
ICAF currently uses letter grades, but is undertaking a
reassessment of the effect of a letter grading system on the
educational objectives of the college. The current letter grading
system at ICAF clearly lays out detailed criteria for assessing
different levels of student performance and assigning grades, but such
criteria also could be applied to a non-letter grade system. During the
1990s, ICAF used a grading system similar to the National War College
using a ``met expectations,'' ``exceeded expectations,'' and ``failed
to meet expectations'' grading system. ICAF's measures to ensure rigor
in its educational program have been little changed from that system to
its current use of letter grades. The ICAF program then and now uses
multiple assessment devices to evaluate how well students are
understanding course content and progressing into a truly strategic
level of conceptual understanding and evaluation. As such, we do not
believe that letter grades, in and of themselves, ensure rigor.
Discussions with the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
during accreditation visits indicate that the college must use clearly
defined and systematically applied criteria for whatever grading system
it uses, and that letter grades are not a requirement. According to
Middle States, a Pass/Fail system is considered acceptable if the
criteria is clearly defined and systematically applied.
ICAF believes that rigor requires an appropriate balance of contact
time and white space. Because ICAF has the unique mission of evaluating
national security strategy (as do all the war colleges) and critically
assessing its underlying resource component, it is keenly aware of the
need to balance adequate contact time with white space to read,
reflect, conceptualize, and strategize. ICAF has just completed a two-
year restructuring of its academic course flow. The Class of 2010 will
have seminar sessions or a lecture each morning of the week, electives
on Tuesday and/or Wednesday afternoons, and white space on most Monday,
Thursday, and Friday afternoons. Productive use of white space requires
some self-discipline by students, but I believe ICAF now provides a
good balance and adequate time for reading, reflecting,
conceptualizing, and strategizing.
Dr. Snyder. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates,
and graduates' supervisors to assess the quality of your program?
General Steel. NWC has a robust process in place for collecting
feedback from students during the academic year. At the close of each
core course, one student from each seminar meets with the Core Course
Director to provide a first look at student perceptions of the course.
All students are then asked to complete detailed on-line surveys.
Through a combination of multiple response and narrative items,
students evaluate the accomplishment of course objectives, the
usefulness of specific topics, readings, and lectures, and the
effectiveness of seminar instruction. They are also encouraged to
provide comments on any aspect of the course that has added to or
distracted from their learning. Each faculty seminar leader receives an
electronic report of feedback from his/her seminar, while the Course
Director is given immediate access to feedback from all seminars. The
Director of IR and Assessment analyzes the surveys for trends and
specific strengths and weaknesses and publishes a summary report. This
report, along with all of the narrative comments, is provided to
leadership for use in curriculum review and revision and is made
available to faculty and students via the ``Assessment'' site on the
NWC Intranet. A similar process is followed at the close of both fall
and spring elective courses. At the end of the year, students complete
a final survey in which they focus on the program as a whole and its
contribution to their achievement of the broader program outcomes. In
AY 2009, our survey response rate was 90% or greater for each of our
core courses and 95% for the end-of-year survey, giving us a very
reliable picture of student opinion.
The National War College conducts biennial surveys of graduates and
their supervisors. Every two years, two classes are surveyed, one in
their first post-graduation assignment and one in their second
assignment. In October 2009, for example, we will survey the Class of
2005 and the Class of 2008. At the same time that we send surveys to
our graduates, we ask them to provide a survey to their first-line
supervisor. In addition, every three years, we request feedback from
our senior stakeholders on the relevance of our outcomes and on areas
that they think require additional emphasis in the education of
strategists. The next senior leader survey, which takes the form of a
letter from our Commandant, is scheduled for spring AY 2010.
The results of these surveys have provided us with feedback to use
both for curriculum validation and renewal. The graduate survey items
focus primarily on student perceptions of their achievement of the NWC
curriculum outcomes, the contributions of the program to their ability
to work in joint, interagency and international environments; any
perceived gaps in their learning, and recommendations for program
improvements. As we are looking for ways in which we can continue to
connect with our graduates, we also ask them what we can provide to
help them stay engaged with strategic issues post-graduation. Survey
results are shared widely with leadership, the curriculum committee and
the faculty at large. In addition, a summary is provided to survey
respondents in appreciation for their contribution to our program.
Securing graduate and supervisor feedback has become more of a
challenge in recent years and response rates have declined. Graduates
have informed us that, because of the demands for accountability, they
receive surveys from every educational institution that they have
attended, both military and civilian. As a result ``survey fatigue''
has been an issue. Deployments of more recent graduates have also been
a factor in this decline. Despite these challenges, however, we
recognize that feedback from graduates is an essential component of our
curriculum evaluation process. Consequently, while we will continue
with our formal surveys, we are investigating other avenues by which we
can engage graduates and supervisors. In AY 2010, we plan to pilot
focus groups that will enable us to investigate specific aspects of our
program. We have also developed a database on all NWC graduates who are
in active flag officer positions as well as current ambassadors and
plan to reach out to them as another means of securing feedback on the
long-term value of our program. Finally, we have been fortunate to have
a very active and supportive alumni association that forwards us
anecdotal feedback that they receive from graduates.
Admiral Hall. Feedback is essential to making informed decisions on
change and growth as an educational institution. At the Industrial
College of the Armed Forces, we continually solicit feedback from our
students, graduates and graduates' supervisors.
During the academic year, we ask our students to fill out web-based
surveys at the end of each course they complete. We also ask them to
complete a survey at the end of the year covering their overall
academic experience. Topics of the survey include how well the faculty
accomplish course objectives, the usefulness of readings, how
instruction can be improved to enhance learning, and how well the
student believes the overall course of study meets his/her long-term
professional needs as a senior leader.
We also conduct a web-based survey with our graduates both one year
and three years after they graduate. The graduates are asked a myriad
of questions, to include if they think ICAF covers the right subjects,
which subjects should be added to the curriculum, and what knowledge,
skills and abilities they think military officers and senior government
officials will need the most in the next 10-15 years.
In conjunction with our graduate surveys, we also solicit input
from graduates' supervisors. We ask supervisors if they think our
graduates are prepared for senior level responsibilities, for joint and
interagency and international assignments.
Dr. Snyder. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why
or Why not?
General Steel. No it should not, at least not for the PME system.
The Service and joint PME schools already receive significant direct
policy guidance from either their parent Service headquarters or from
the NDU headquarters. Centralized coordination of the entire PME
system, as well as of each individual PME school, is provided by the
CJCS via CJCSI 1800.01C, Officer Professional Military Education Policy
(OPMEP), and via the J-7 Joint Education and Doctrine Division. This
centralized coordination includes a rigorous Joint Staff-managed
accreditation evaluation of each PME school every six years. Adding
another layer of bureaucracy would be redundant and burdensome,
especially when you consider that quality education, as a largely
creative enterprise, flourishes best when given as much autonomy as
possible within broad, general guidelines. Piling up layers or degrees
of bureaucracy crimps the innovation and artistry that are at the heart
of the highest quality educational programs.
Admiral Hall. The OSD Chancellors office is not necessary for the
senior school JPME system. CJCS, the Director of the Joint Staff, and
J-7 provide more than adequate oversight and quality control of the
senior school JPME system through the OPMEP, the PAJE, the MECC, and
the MECC Working Group. An OSD Chancellors office may have value for
coordination and quality control over other DOD civilian education and
professional development activities to ensure that appropriate
standards of academic quality and cost-effectiveness are met, but it
would provide only an additional bureaucratic layer and no unique
contribution for senior school JPME.
Dr. Snyder. Ethics--what should be the role of ethical education at
the senior schools beyond ``just war'' theory?
General Steel. Strategy that ignores the ethical dimension is
inherently weaker, as history continues to teach. Our early experience
in Operation Iraqi Freedom is the latest example. In developing
strategic thinkers, the National War College has a dual
responsibility--both to help future strategists develop their own
frameworks for dealing with the ethical dilemmas they invariably will
confront and, in their transition from tactical to strategic roles, to
give them the tools to shape ethical behavior across organizations. If
``war amongst the people'' represents the future of warfare, as an
influential modern theorist posits, then ethical considerations loom
even larger. Toward that end, a number of didactic methods are
employed. A recurring theme throughout the year in the six required
core courses at the heart of the NWC curriculum is the essential role
of leadership, especially in Courses One--``Introduction to Strategy,''
Two--``War and Statecraft,'' Three--``Diplomacy and Statecraft,''
Four--``The Domestic Context and National Security Decision-Making,''
and Six--``Applications in National Security Strategy.'' Through case
studies, lectures, readings, and seminar discussions, students are
exposed to dozens of key strategic leaders throughout history and the
decisions that defined their legacies--both positive and negative.
Ethics is often a factor. Exercises in the core course seminars provide
the students with practical challenges they are required to confront--
many with ethical dilemmas. In Course Six, last year's students
conducted an exercise on ``Instability, Uncertainty, and Nukes,'' where
an incident of nuclear terrorism within the United States was a
defining event. To help familiarize students with the historic and
modern context of war and ethics, three separate topics are
incorporated into Course Two: Just War Theory, The Rise of `Lawfare' in
Modern Conflicts, and the Quranic Concept of War. Similarly, two topics
which have ethics as a key sub-theme are contained in Course Four:
Dissent Within Interagency Negotiations, and Civil Military
Interactions. The Commandant's Lecture Series, a required six part
series that incorporates readings along with six lectures by eminent
practitioners, has as its theme ``Strategic Leadership and Ethics.''
Finally, NWC has embraced the Executive Assessment and Development
Program as an important learning tool. EADP uses feedback from previous
peers and subordinates to help students--supervised individually by
faculty member--to improve their leadership skills. Ethics is one of
the areas specifically addressed in the feedback.
Admiral Hall. Ethics are the core of our profession. Unfortunately,
some senior leaders make poor decisions in regard to personal,
professional and organizational ethics. We have seen the devastating
strategic effect this behavior has had on mission effectiveness and our
national security. When I arrived as the Commandant, I enhanced the
existing ethics program at ICAF and established ethics as an area of
special emphasis to be woven throughout the curriculum, not as a
separate and distinct subject of study. The faculty has successfully
integrated ethics into their course lessons and lectures and prepared
our graduates to include an assessment of ``What is the ethical
dimension we are dealing with?'' as a factor in addressing personal,
professional, and organizational issues. During the academic year, ICAF
schedules one day in each term to discuss the subject of ethics. In the
fall, we have a panel of speakers and special seminar sessions to
discuss ethics in national security affairs. In the spring, we focus
the panel and seminar sessions on ethics involved in government-
industry relationships.
Dr. Snyder. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or
Consultants, separate from your University's, so it could focus just on
your mission?
General Steel. From the beginning of the College in 1946, NWC had a
``board of consultants'' who were originally picked by Admiral Hill,
our first Commandant, to assist him in the preparation of the
curriculum and the selection of faculty. The Board, over the years,
included distinguished four stars and ambassadors, chiefs of service,
university presidents, distinguished scholars, and foreign policy
leaders, from Omar Bradley to Bernard Brodie, to the President of the
University of California system to Father Ted Hesburg from Notre Dame.
The Board was an active participant in the College's program. They had
periodic sessions at the College, would sit in classes, review the
course work, consult with the Commandant and generally give feedback to
the school on its overall operation. They also attended to the
College's needs. The Board's work is mentioned in each of the annual
reports of the College until the establishment of the National Defense
University. At that time the NWC Board was terminated. I do think we
need our own board of consultants or oversight board. NDU's Board of
Visitors (BOV) is focused upon the bigger NDU strategic issues and
pretty much disconnected from the components' specific requirements and
needs. The NDU Board of Visitors has plenty to do just regarding NDU
issues, subsequently, with the large growth of NDU, the effectiveness
of the NDU BOV has been diluted somewhat when it comes to the specific
components. NWC needs a board of consultants who know our mission, our
challenges and who have been to NWC and can support the school in the
same manner it did when it was first established. This is not to
suggest that the NDU BOV is not needed. I would see value in the
collaborative efforts of an NDU BOV and an NWC board of consultants.
Admiral Hall. Although ICAF does not have its own Board of
Visitors, we do have a significant number of distinguished visitors
that are authorities in the field of national defense, academia,
business, national security affairs, and the defense industry. Through
these visits and our robust outreach program, the College receives a
lot of advice and recommendations on the mission and curricula, similar
to the inputs a Board of Visitors provides.
Dr. Snyder. What is being done to allow students sufficient
discretionary time for study and reflection, given that the PAJE study
noted that it was being squeezed out by an increase in extra-curricular
requirements such as attendance at university-sponsored lectures?
Admiral Hall. Since the PAJE visit NDU has adopted a system of one
university sponsored lecture (now called the Distinguished Lecture
Program) per week. Likewise, ICAF also sponsors only one college-wide
lecture per week, called the Commandant's Lecture Series. ICAF believes
that this maximum of two lectures per week by outside speakers is
appropriate for exposing students to a wide range of senior government
and private sector speakers who can share their perspectives on policy,
national security issues, strategy, and resource issues with our
student population of future strategic leaders. Students need to hear
from current leaders, but should not spend too much time in passive
learning situations.
ICAF believes that rigor requires an appropriate balance of contact
time and white space. Because ICAF has the unique mission of evaluating
national security strategy (as do all the war colleges) and critically
assessing its underlying resource component, it is keenly aware of the
need to balance adequate contact time with white space to read,
reflect, conceptualize, and strategize. ICAF has just completed a two-
year restructuring of its academic course flow and the class of 2010
will have seminar sessions or lecture each morning of the week,
electives on Tuesday and/or Wednesday afternoons, and white space on
most Monday, Thursday, and Friday afternoons. Productive use of white
space requires some self-discipline by students, but I believe ICAF now
provides a good balance and adequate time for reading, reflecting,
conceptualizing, and strategizing.
Dr. Snyder. Have the writing requirements been reviewed in response
to the PAJE observation that faculty and students both considered them
excessive?
Admiral Hall. ICAF continually reviews its assessment program and
balances the work load on students against the need for assessment and
rigor. In order to ensure the ICAF program is rigorous in its ability
to properly advance student learning with regard to strategy, strategic
national security affairs, and the resource component of national
security, each component of the ICAF program must involve some kind of
assessment mechanism. Currently, ICAF predominantly uses 2 to 3 page or
5 to 7 page papers for most of its writing requirements. ICAF uses
paper assignments to assess the development of student skills in
analysis, conceptualization, and argument and to determine whether
students can produce complex, multi-issue papers that are coherent,
well-organized, and well-argued. Moreover, ICAF believes that its paper
writing program also prepares students to produce high quality, complex
papers in a short period of time--something that frequently is common
at senior levels in national security affairs. Rapid turn-around of
issue analysis or policy recommendation papers for principals is the
norm at the NSC, DOD, State Department, and within the intelligence
community. ICAF has only ten months to prepare students for senior
policy positions and its writing program both assesses student thinking
and skills, and prepares them for operating effectively at senior
levels.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in the previous question about whether
rigor requires increased contact time and less ``white space'' or vice
versa, ICAF has just completed a two-year restructuring of its academic
course flow. The better alignment of the calendar has produced
increased convergence of due dates for course papers. The college is
establishing a faculty study committee to review our assessment
mechanisms (especially the number and length of papers and their due
dates), explore alternative means for quality assessment, and make
recommendations to ensure that ICAF uses high quality assessment
instruments while not overloading the students with writing
requirements and diminishing student white space study time.
Dr. Snyder. The renewal of civilian faculty contracts were
characterized by a lack of ``timeliness.'' How has this been corrected?
General Steel. This comment was tied directly to the formal process
of submission through the NDU Human Resources Directorate (HRD), the
NDU Chain of Command, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
There was a continuous stream of significant turnover so the learning
curve for those in the processing chain delayed the submissions.
There has been some improvement, however, HRD is still experiencing
a significant turnover of personnel, and it is extremely short handed
in key positions such as the Director of HRD which has been vacant for
over a year, and the lack of a trained Title 10 expert, the last who
departed some months ago. Vice Admiral Rondeau, the new NDU President,
has initiated the hiring process for a new HRD Director effective July
22, 2009.
Dr. Snyder. The terms ``training'' and ``education'' seem to be
used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the
difference and what part of your curriculum is training and which part
is education?
Admiral Wisecup. There is clearly a difference between training and
education and they should not be used interchangeably. The American
Heritage Dictionary defines training as ``the process or routine of
making someone proficient with specialized instruction and practice.''
Education is defined as ``the act or process of developing innate
capacities especially by schooling or instruction.'' A more PME-related
distinction, written by Dr. David Trettler of National War College,
appears in Enclosure A of the Officer Professional Military Education
Policy (CJCSI 1800.01C). It describes education as: ``in its broadest
conception, education conveys general bodies of knowledge and develops
habits of mind applicable to the broad spectrum of endeavors. At its
highest levels and purest forms, education fosters breadth of view,
diverse perspectives and critical analysis, abstract reasoning, comfort
with ambiguity and uncertainty, innovative thinking, particularly with
respect to complex, non-linear problems. This contrasts with training
which focuses on the instruction of personnel to enhance the capacity
to perform specific functions and tasks.''
At the Naval War College our senior course curriculum is education.
What very little training that takes place within the course of
instruction facilitates student activity and products in our several
capstone exercises. For example, the capstone wargame exercise for the
Joint Military Operations course requires the students to operate as
joint force staff members in boards and cells in a networked
environment. A half day of training is required to familiarize them
with the supporting computer network, the electronic systems, web
pages, etc.
Dr. Snyder. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants
and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes
to be a faculty member. Can you describe a typical faculty member's
day? Do you yourself teach or mentor individual students? a. Unlike
civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty
members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants,
or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, and
writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside
the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals,
military and civilian?
Admiral Wisecup. Since the 1989 Skelton Report, the Naval War
College has reorganized its leadership model, converting the Dean of
Academics to a civilian position and adding a Provost, who effectively
is the College's Chief Operating Officer and the Dean of Faculty. All
of the four Provosts have had teaching experience as faculty members
and academic administrators. Each of the Deans of Academics has had
extensive experience as a faculty member in professional military
education and civilian universities or colleges. These organizational
changes were designed to strengthen the faculty perspective within the
College's senior leadership.
The Deans of Academics have maintained an active role in the
classroom, most often by teaching elective courses. The Provosts have
also participated in the Electives Program and occasionally the core
academic program, usually augmenting a full-time faculty member. The
current President also occasionally participates in the Electives
program as a guest speaker, as did his predecessor. The President,
Provost, and Dean of Academics regularly visit classrooms to observe
and actively participate in seminar discussions. Likewise, they
routinely meet with faculty members to exchange perspectives and remain
attuned to the faculty's challenges. The College's leadership team
remains deeply committed to the quality of education at the Naval War
College and fully understands the College's center of gravity is its
faculty. In the aggregate, these actions, we believe, have accomplished
the intent of this recommendation of the 1989 Skelton Panel.
The Naval War College developed an academic rhythm, distinct among
the PME schools and colleges, suited to its paradigm of a single
faculty teaching both the intermediate and senior level courses. First,
we adopted a quarter-like system and teach three extended quarters,
which we call trimesters, annually. Second, we developed three core
academic departments, each with sufficient faculty to design, prepare
and teach the curricula for its particular department. Faculty in each
department then teaches the core academic program for two of the three
trimesters. For that teaching trimester, a faculty member typically
spends approximately four morning hours daily in the classroom with
students. The afternoon is spent in tutorials, mentoring students,
preparing for class, doing limited research, curriculum review, or
maintaining currency in their specialty. During the third trimester and
the six-week summer period, faculty members have more opportunity to
conduct research and write, develop curricula, and pursue faculty
development.
As stated in our Faculty Handbook, ``The Naval War College expects
all civilian faculty members whose duties are not primarily
administrative to engage in professional research and exhibit a
sustained commitment to scholarship. It expects most of them to publish
at least some of the results of their research. Military members are
not expected to publish, but are encouraged to do so in their areas of
expertise.'' For civilian professors teaching in the three core
academic departments, there are common elements in every faculty
members' performance appraisal: teaching performance, curriculum
development, research and publication, and service to the College's
larger mission. Individual faculty members meet with their departmental
Chairs and establish personal plans annually to develop more specific
criteria for those common areas and any distinct areas relevant to that
professor's performance. Additionally, the Faculty Handbook established
criteria for consideration for promotion to the ranks of Associate
Professor and Professor which include research and publication
expectations. Thus, their annual appraisals, their potential for
promotion, and ultimately their reappointment rest, in part, on their
productive scholarship. Military faculty members are expected to
research and contribute to curricula development and are judged in
their appraisals accordingly. A list of faculty publications in the
last year illustrates that the College faculty is highly productive in
research and publication.
Dr. Snyder. Does having a master's degree program at these schools
detract from the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy
to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the
academic instead of professional education?
Admiral Wisecup. The Naval War College sought to grant the masters
degree in order to get its students to focus on their PME studies.
Twenty years ago, over 70% of our student body simultaneously pursued a
master's degree in a local college or university, using transferred
credit hours from the NWC course of instruction to form the foundation
for its graduate requirements. These night courses clearly competed for
the students' academic attention. To rectify this problem, the College
asked the New England Association of Schools and Colleges to assess our
educational program to see if it qualified for accreditation for a
master's degree.
The Naval War College changed nothing in its educational routine to
qualify itself for this degree. The regional civilian educators
determined the academic program was sufficiently comprehensive and
contained sufficient rigor to meet accreditation standards. The
regional authority clearly recognized this College as a professional
school with an academic program tailored to the military or defense
professional. Curriculum content, student assessment, faculty
qualifications, and our business and academic support processes all met
their standards.
Since the College has begun to award master's degrees, less than 1%
of our U.S. graduates have pursued simultaneous degrees with local
colleges or universities. We now have our students' full academic
attention on their PME studies.
There have been several key benefits to the institution and its
faculty which accompanied regional accreditation. For the faculty
members, teaching in an accredited, graduate degree college has
strengthened their credentials. For the College, it has provided
stature and facilitated inter-institutional dialogue and activities as
well as enabling us to attract top-notch faculty members. For the
College and the Navy, it has provided an external review to ensure our
academic programs and institutional practices meet common standards
within the educational community.
Granting of a master's degree has strengthened our PME mission. An
external authority ensures we continue to meet educational standards
which ensures our students receive a bonafide graduate education and
their parent Service (Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, Coast Guard, etc.)
gets back an officer grounded in both academic and professional
military education capable of strategically minded critical thinking
and excelling in positions of strategic leadership. Those officers also
possess a credential recognized by their civilian counterparts in the
interagency.
Dr. Snyder. Do all of your students receive master's degrees--why
or why not? What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you?
Please be specific, is it more important to have an advanced degree in
specific areas like international relations, political science, a
regional study, or military or political history than it is to have a
PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering?
Admiral Wisecup. Only our U.S. students are eligible for the
master's degree. Nearly all of them earn it; a few senior-level
students over the years have not met the grading standards and have
instead received a NWC diploma instead of a degree. Students must earn
a final grade of B- or above in each core course (or an approved
advanced research program in lieu of one of the core courses), and who
pass three elective courses, to be awarded the Naval War College Master
of Arts degree in National Security and Strategic Studies and the
appropriate JPME certification. Resident students from the CNW and the
CNC&S who complete the three core courses (or an approved advanced
research program in lieu of one of the core courses), with an overall
average grade of B- or better and not more than one course grade in the
``C'' category, and who pass three elective courses are eligible for
the NWC diploma and the appropriate JPME certification.
International officers from the Naval Command College and Naval
Staff College are excluded from the master's degree program. The
Department of Education and the Congress authorized granting of the
degree only to U.S. students. The College has a partnership with a
local university which resulted in a program available to these
international officers to get a master's degree by doing some
additional research and class work.
For uniformed faculty, we expect expertise in their area of
specialty (i.e. submarines, infantry, surface ships, aviation.
logistics, etc.). We seek officers who have commanded as commanders or
lieutenant colonels or held equivalent positions in the restricted line
or staff communities and prefer officers who have also commanded as a
captain or a colonel. We seek combat experience or operational
experience in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We seek
experience at the strategic or operational levels. We expect them to be
intermediate-level school graduates with JPME Phase I and expect most
of them to also be senior-level graduates. We seek officers with joint
experience, preferably Joint Qualified Officers. For civilian
education, we expect them to possess a master's degree at a minimum.
Although a majority of our faculty have advanced degrees in
international relations, history, political science, or military or
political history, the discipline is not as important as their teaching
ability. Our faculty has advanced degrees in a variety of disciplines
and this diversity adds to the richness of our education.
Dr. Snyder. What does ``top quality'' mean for civilian faculty?
Please be specific. a. Does not having tenure affect how professors
treat ``academic freedom''?
Admiral Wisecup. As stated in our Faculty Handbook, ``The Naval War
College expects all civilian faculty members whose primary duties are
not primarily administrative to engage in professional research and
exhibit a sustained commitment to scholarship. It expects most of them
to publish at least some of the results of their research. Military
members are not expected to publish, but are encouraged to do so in
their areas of expertise.'' For civilian professors teaching in the
three core academic departments, there are common elements in every
faculty members' performance appraisal; teaching performance,
curriculum development, research and publication, and service to the
College's larger mission. Individual faculty members meet with their
departmental Chairs and establish personal plans annually to develop
more specific criteria for those common areas and any distinct areas
relevant to the professor's performance. Additionally, the Faculty
Handbook established criteria for consideration for promotion to the
ranks of Associate Professor and Professor which includes research and
publication expectations. Thus, their annual appraisals, their
potential for promotion, and ultimately their reappointment rest, in
part on their productive scholarship. Military faculty members are
expected to research and contribute to curricula development and are
judged in their appraisals accordingly.
Civilian faculty members in the rank of associate professor can
have a successful career at the Naval War College. When the College
revised its published criteria for assignment of civilian professorial
ranks and the criteria for promotion and published it in the Faculty
Handbook, we publicly identified our key indicators of top quality.
They are the specific criteria for promotion to the rank of professor.
The criteria are ``excellence in teaching or research, not simply a
satisfactory level of performance; significant contributions to either
the NWC's educational mission or NWC's research, analysis, and gaming
function; active engagement and visibility in the faculty members
academic or professional community; significant productivity in
scholarly publication or professional research; a consistent commitment
in the faculty member's teaching and/or research, analysis, and gaming
to fostering critical thinking from a joint perspective and cultivating
the ability of students/officers to function effectively in a joint,
interagency, and multinational environment; a demonstrated commitment
to teamwork with other faculty members across the departments and codes
of the Naval War College, and the ability to develop or advance new
ideas that enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of both the faculty
members department and the college as a whole.''
The practice of academic freedom by faculty members at the Naval
War College is robust. While the Congress, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, combatant commanders, and CNO are rightfully involved
in professional military education policy and engaged in determining
professional educational standards, the College's executive leadership
has been successful in preserving the autonomy of the College and its
faculty in deciding what to teach and how to teach it. Faculty members
are allowed great scope for experimenting with different teaching
methods and for expressing different points of view in the classroom.
Aside from projects assigned to researchers in the Center for Naval
Warfare Studies, faculty members have been free to choose the subjects
of their research and writing. Hardly a week passes without Naval War
College professors publicly expressing opinions and offering expertise
on current political and military issues in a wide variety of mass
media--television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and journalistic
websites. The College prides itself on respect for academic freedom; at
the same time, the idea that the exercise of academic freedom should be
informed in practice by a sense of responsibility is widely accepted
among faculty members dealing with issues of great national and
international importance.
Dr. Snyder. Since you don't have tenure, what is the process for
renewal and non-renewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the
system? Do professors know six months before they are up for renewal
whether they will be renewed, for how long, and why? In a tenure system
people think the faculty members have all the power, in a no-tenure
system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How do you avoid
the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your
civilian faculty don't have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees
they do have and why they were hired.
Admiral Wisecup. The process of retaining faculty is an open,
orderly and fair one. Though the College does not employ a system of
tenure and has no intention of doing so, it accords its faculty
reasonable contractual security consistent with the College's mission.
The College continues to sustain its quality standard for faculty. As a
practice, the College renews contracts as early as 364 days in advance
prior to their expiration. All faculty members are notified at least
six months prior to the expiration of their contract. As highlighted in
the Faculty Handbook, in all but extraordinary circumstances,
notification of non-reappointment will be given by 1 December prior to
the expiration of the contractual term.
Faculty members with more than six years of continuous employment
at the Naval War College have the right to request a peer review of
their non-reappointment. (Six years is the typical length of time it
takes to make tenure at a civilian university.) A Non-Reappointment
Review Committee will be appointed to consider their appeal. This
process is delineated in the Faculty Handbook. There has only been one
request for peer review of a non-reappointment since the original
Skelton Report was published in 1989. Non-reappointment of faculty who
have served more than six years is unusual.
The College's unique paradigm that one faculty teaches both the
intermediate and senior level PME course influences our hiring
practices for the civilian faculty. Terminal academic degrees are
significant. However, professional expertise and experience can be
substituted for a terminal academic degree.
As a matter of practice, the Strategy & Policy Department demands
that all civilian faculty members hold terminal academic degrees. The
twenty-two civilian faculty members in the department all hold terminal
academic degrees and are acknowledged experts in history, political
science, or international relations. All come from prestigious
universities or institutes.
The civilian faculty members in the National Security Decision
Making (NSDM) Department all have a specialty which relates to NSDM
curricula and are proven experts in their respective field of endeavor.
Currently, all NSDM civilian faculty members hold, at a minimum, a
masters degree, while over seventy-four percent (23 of 31 faculty
members) hold terminal degrees. Of the eight faculty members without
terminal academic degrees, six are military retirees with professional
experience relevant to the NSDM courses and one is a civilian professor
who has completed her doctoral classes and is completing the required
dissertation. The final civilian faculty member is not a Title 10
professor, but rather a representative from the State Department, a
Foreign Service officer with extensive diplomatic experience overseas.
In the Joint Military Operations (JMO) Department, civilian faculty
members all have a specialty which relates to JMO curricula and
complements the expertise of the military faculty. Twenty-one of the
twenty-four civilian professors are retired military officers. All have
significant and diverse military or military related backgrounds which
incorporate a broad range of tactical, operational, and joint duty
experience into the overall skills base of JMO. All civilian faculty
members have a minimum of a M.A./M.S. and fifty-four percent (13 of 24)
hold a J.D./PhD or are PhD candidates. Sixty-six percent (16 of 24)
hold multiple advanced degrees. Seventy-nine percent (19 of 24) were
JPME Phase I or II qualified while on active duty and twenty-five
percent (6 of 24) were JSO equivalents while on active duty. There is
significant previous joint duty experience among the civilian faculty.
Dr. Snyder. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire
``younger'' PhDs--Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or
practical experience to be able to hold their own with the caliber and
seniority of students you have? Does it mean you have to push out
``older professors'' who may be performing well in order to bring on
younger ones?
Admiral Wisecup. The Naval War College has had good success in
hiring ``younger Ph.D.s.'' About six years ago, the College identified
the ``graying'' of the faculty as a concern. Accordingly, policies were
put in place to clearly establish uniform criteria for academic ranks
including hiring and promotion of civilian faculty. The College's core
academic faculty was still growing to meet its enlarging student
population, providing an opportunity to hire new faculty members from
across the academic ranks including Assistant Professors, a virtually
unused, academic rank previously. The College networked with key
national security or international security Ph.D. programs to identify
noteworthy young scholars. The departmental faculty approached the
hiring of younger scholars with great care, fully realizing the caliber
and seniority of our students. Each of our younger faculty members
possesses key expertise in areas where the faculty determined we needed
strengthening and each was required to demonstrate teaching prowess in
the seminar setting as an integral element of the hiring process.
The results have been most positive, especially in the departments
that teach with a faculty team. These younger PhDs were paired with an
experienced military faculty member during their first teaching year.
Clearly, the senior military faculty member eased the concern about
youth, experience and credibility with both our intermediate and senior
students. Civilian faculty mentors also helped to transition these
young scholars into the College's educational model. Faculty workshops
ensured they were fully prepared for seminar discussions. In the
department without team teaching, additional measures were taken to
ensure a smooth transition to the classroom.
We did not push out ``older professors'' in order to bring on the
younger ones. First, these stalwarts are the foundation of our
educational success. Additionally, they provide continuity to the
institution. Second, we were in a growing phase for the faculty and
hired a mix of younger scholars and more seasoned scholars. By doing
so, we have improved the institution and addressed in part our concern
about the ``graying'' of the faculty.
Dr. Snyder. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and
student mixes while the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other
mix. Are the faculty and student mixes dictated for the various
institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate for Congress
to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA FY
2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a
requirement to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and
National must send ``50% plus one'' graduates to joint assignments. Is
this still appropriate? Should Service schools have some kind of
requirement?
Admiral Wisecup. A lot has happened to change the environment since
the 1989 Skelton Report. Congress has even redefined the term ``joint
matters.'' Those changes in the international security environment
affected the way the Services operate for the last two decades. As a
result Service cultures have matured. ``Jointness'' is not a foreign
word to today's midcareer military professional as it was for most
officers in 1989. Clearly, joint acculturation is one of the key
educational outcomes for senior Service Colleges, but today that means
not simply multi-service, but something far closer to the revised
definition of joint matters. For today's students, the mix of
international partners and interagency representatives is as important
as the joint acculturation process. If there were to be any revision in
the mix requirement, it should clearly be expanded to include multi-
agency and multi-national representation as well. Using an expanded
formula, the student mix for last academic year for the College of
Naval Warfare was 39% U.S. Navy and 9% U.S. Marine Corps with 18%
international partners, 14% U.S. Army, 10% Federal Civilians, and 9%
U.S. Air Force.
We work hard to ensure that our students all get a first-class
graduate education in national security, albeit with a maritime
perspective. We regard the concept of ``non-neutral ground'' as an
outdated construct, especially as we increase the numbers of
interagency and international students.
The faculty and student mixes at the Service senior schools are
appropriate for multi-service acculturation; as indicated by the data
from our graduates over the last three years. Data from alumni surveys
reinforce this conclusion. The current mix is sufficient and allows the
Naval War College to continue to perform its Service PME mission and
ensure that its graduates are well steeped in the contemporary
challenges relevant to the maritime domain. Our graduates are ready to
serve on the staffs of a Joint Force Maritime Component Commander or
Maritime Operations Center. The expertise and functioning of such
commands are critical to our continued success in the joint warfight.
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes rigor in your educational program?
Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams?
Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if
so, of what length? Does rigor require increased contact time and less
``white space'' or vice versa?
Admiral Wisecup. RADM Kurth, in his testimony to the Skelton
Committee, said ``what education ultimately contributes to a successful
military commander and strategist is a habit of mind and judgment . .
.'' The educational process at the Naval War College is designed to
hone the critical thinking skills of its students at every level.
Developing habits of mind requires a challenging academic program, one
that forces students to reevaluate their personal decision making
models, often refocus their perspective, and assess their own
analytical approach. They must repeatedly be forced to think and
required to attempt to resolve complex problems.
The Naval War College's education program begins by expanding the
student's experience and knowledge through a demanding reading and
study program. Students must then analyze and judge the reading
material and present their assessment and conclusions. By relying
predominantly on the case study method and graduate-level seminars, the
College is able to repeatedly challenge the students' habits of mind.
The seminar interaction forces the students to present and defend their
analyses and conclusions. Over the course of ten months, there is ample
opportunity to develop expanded habits of mind and refine one's
judgment.
The College recognizes our students are competitive, self-
motivated, mature professionals who possess the discipline and desire
to apply themselves to these studies. In fact, the work we see from the
students in the elective program which is graded on a pass or fail
basis is equivalent to that in the core program where they receive
letter grades. But we steadfastly believe grading, writing research
(14-18 pages each) and analytical papers (10-14 pages each), and
written exams are integral elements of our academic program. These
exercises complement the daily seminar interaction and force students
to integrate the learning into their approach to thinking and decision
making. Grading is another form of teaching which the College's faculty
takes very seriously, providing significant feedback on each student's
work. For most of the year, we also grade the students' contribution to
the graduate-level seminar.
Over the decades, the faculty has concluded the students must have
sufficient time to read, study and reflect as well as conduct research.
Except for the scheduled periods of capstone exercises, the College has
found a typical week of 15-18 hours contact time with the remainder
reserved for student study, preparation, and writing is best.
Dr. Snyder. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates,
and graduates' supervisors to assess the quality of your program?
Admiral Wisecup. Short-term assessment of the curricula by the
students has been a long-standing practice of the College. It has
evolved into a continuous, systematic, and comprehensive evaluation
program that provides students, graduates, and senior military leaders
the means to stimulate significant curriculum revisions. We survey
students throughout the academic year at different points. These are
the elements of our survey system:
Explicit assessments of the curriculum are routinely provided by
all students through questionnaires. These include individual-session
or curriculum-block questionnaires completed by students at the
conclusion of each seminar to evaluate class utility and materials.
Such critiques provide immediate feedback to the faculty responsible
for each session's development as well as a continuous indication of
the success of the course. A comprehensive end-of-course questionnaire
is employed by all academic departments, the Electives Program, the
Advanced Research Program, special programs (such as the Stockdale
Group, Mahan Scholars and the Halsey Groups), and College of Distance
Education to solicit feedback from students.
These electronic questionnaires ask students to evaluate a broad
range of issues related to the curriculum and its execution. The
students provide a numerical assessment as well as a qualitative one
through their amplifying comments. Questions address the
appropriateness of course objectives, the degree of attainment of these
objectives, the difficulty of the course, the quality of instructor
performance, and the perceived potential value of the course. The
anonymous responses are compiled into both statistical and narrative
summaries, which are reviewed by the faculty and analyzed and
interpreted by the departments. Periodically, support elements
throughout the College, such as the Library, administer a survey to
students and faculty regarding their services. The results are
presented to the Academic Policy Board, the Provost and President of
the College.
Student assessment of the curriculum and operation of the College
is also provided through the student academic committees. These
committees bring student representatives from each seminar into contact
with the Deans of Academics, Students, and Naval Warfare Studies, with
academic department chairs, course directors, the Associate Dean of
Academics for Electives and Directed Research, service advisors, the
Director of the Eccles Library, and an Information Resources Department
representative. Meeting at least twice each trimester, these committees
ensure that students and administrative problems are addressed
immediately or referred to appropriate planning bodies.
Students have informal opportunities to express opinions on the
College and its programs to peers, instructors, department chairs, the
Provost, and even the President. Student leaders periodically meet with
Dean of Students and Provost, often to exchange views on the academic
or co-curricular programs. The President and other senior leaders
occasionally travel with officers in the international programs and use
the opportunity to obtain qualitative feedback about the College.
For past several years, the College has administered a survey to
its resident U.S. students as they graduate. The success of this survey
led to similar survey instruments being developed and administered for
graduating senior international officers and graduating Fleet Seminar
students. During the last academic year, the College began regularly
conducting focus groups with selected members of the graduating
classes. The focus groups provide valuable insights not received in the
electronic surveys. All of these surveys solicit information from these
graduating students regarding the overall effect of their educational
experience, including their judgments about the quality and utility of
the instruction and the degree that certain educational outcomes were
achieved. Survey analysis and results are provided to the members of
the APC in order to inform educational policy making and contribute
toward design of future academic programs and curricula.
Periodic alumni surveys also provide useful data in judging the
quality and utility of the education to the careers of professional
graduates. Recently, the College surveyed alumni from the classes of
2005, 2006, and 2007 from both CNW and CNC&S. There were approximately
1700 alumni surveys distributed and 458 responses received for a 27%
response rate. Specifically, alumni were asked to estimate the
appropriateness of the educational objectives, the degree to which
these objectives were attained, and the contribution each core course
made in preparing them for future positions in the national security
arena. They were also asked to suggest possible revisions to the
academic and co-curricular programs to make them even more useful to
future students. Results once analyzed will be provided to the APC and
other concerned elements of the College. The President sent
congratulatory letters and surveys to graduates that have recently been
selected for promotion to flag/general officers during the past year.
This is valuable feedback focused on the suitability and completeness
of the desired educational outcomes provided by flag/general officers
from all Services.
Departmental faculty members routinely visit with key strategic and
operational-level commanders and their staffs as an element of
curricula currency and development. Those discussions invariably touch
on the desired educational outcomes and objectives and the performance
of our graduates. The continuing professional and personal
relationships between faculty and alumni proved to be invaluable in
validating the quality, relevance, and currency of the curriculum.
Informally, these graduates provide unsolicited input on a continuing
basis directly to the faculty concerning the value of curriculum
material to their subsequent assignments and suggesting improvements in
curriculum substance and pedagogy. Even more definitively, the return
of graduates to teaching positions at the College greatly enhances the
currency of the academic program. E-mail, while informal and anecdotal,
has increased the volume of this feedback and its substantive value.
Those in more senior positions even provided insights and requirements
that affected new course design.
Dr. Snyder. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why
or Why not?
Admiral Wisecup. The College's principal communication with the
former OSD Chancellor's office was related to the MECC and the CJCS
accreditation process (Process for Accreditation of Joint Education).
The College has found the Joint Staff J-7 and the supporting MECC
organization productive and sufficient. The special chain of command
established by CJCS for policy and issues regarding professional
military education including joint education has continued to serve the
College, the Navy and the nation well. We are not convinced that
reinventing a layer at OSD divorced from the PME community would serve
us as well. Education is not one of the core competencies of the
Department of Defense and without a direct supporting vehicle like the
MECC, another layer of staff may create more issues than they resolve.
However, the Joint Staff J-7 whose duties are much more intimately
involved would be a better source for the comparison of the former
office to the way OSD is organized to do business today.
One of the current challenges for the Naval War College is dealing
with the multiple sources of our federal service, civilian students.
Articulating requirements, coordinating applications, often dealing
individually with potential civilian students from many different
sources is a time consuming, but necessary investment to ensure we have
representation from the interagency arena and Department of Defense
activities and agencies. Since interagency representation is a common
challenge for the PME colleges, support from the OSD level might be
helpful in making progress on student and faculty mixes.
Dr. Snyder. Ethics--what should be the role of ethical education at
the senior schools beyond ``just war'' theory?
Admiral Wisecup. Just war theory is important at the SSC level
because an understanding of the history and principles of just war
augment and deepen the students' understanding of just war which is
often limited to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). LOAC alone is
inadequate for the higher levels of command (for one reason) because
law necessarily lags behind emerging technologies and threats.
Therefore, the deeper understanding of the long history of just war
gives the students categories for thinking in principled terms about
such legal gray areas.
In addition, ethical issues at the more senior levels of leadership
are in some respects quite different than those familiar to officers
from their lower ranking experiences. This is because the range of
obligations multiply almost exponentially. One is no longer only
concerned with one's personal integrity and the welfare of
subordinates. At more senior ranks, one must also consider the welfare
of one's Service, the success of the overall operational or strategic
plan, the health of the relationship between the military and both the
government it serves and the broader society it represents. As those
obligations multiply and often conflict, the senior service colleges
provide an invaluable ``safe'' environment in which senior leaders can
explore and discuss how they might handle these morally complex and
ambiguous environments. Typically, officers have a limited moral
vocabulary (``maintain your integrity,'' ``tell the truth'') which is
sometimes insufficiently nuanced to really help them think about these
environments. By discussion of historical examples and case studies of
moral decision making in such environments, officers are prepared (to
the limited degree that any classroom can prepare one) to face and
think clearly about the future environments in which they will find
themselves.
For decades, the College had an Ethics Conference as an integral
element of the academic program. We have a professor designated as the
Stockdale Chair of Ethics and Leadership to advise and improve our
educational approach to ethics. In fact the College has just hired one
of the country's most renowned scholars on military professional ethics
as the new Stockdale Chair. For the last two years, we refined our
approach and begin the academic year with an Ethics Conference which
introduces that year's ethical theme and then follows with several
other educational events throughout the year. This year there will also
be an intersessional conference devoted to an ethics issue.
Additionally, one of our Elective Program's areas of study is
leadership and ethics.
Dr. Snyder. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or
Consultants, separate from your University's, so it could focus just on
your mission?
Admiral Wisecup. The Naval War College has traditionally had a
Board of Advisors (BOA) who advised the President on issues related to
the College's mission. Occasionally, the Board would also communicate
with the Chief of Naval Operations concerning issues it deemed critical
to the College and the Navy. That Board served only this College.
Recently (27 May 2009), the Secretary of the Navy was directed by
the OSD Committee Management Office to disestablish the NWC BOA,
recommending it be consolidated with the Naval Postgraduate School
Board of Advisors. The Naval War College is working through the AAUSN
to achieve a satisfactory solution.
Dr. Snyder. What has been done to improve the professional
development opportunities for the faculty given that the PAJE noted
that it compromised the college's ability to retain outstanding faculty
members? Explain the Admiral's comment that he can afford tenure to
some civilian faculty.
Admiral Wisecup. The Naval War College initially identified this
issue in our Self-Study for the College of Naval Warfare PAJE for JPME
II Certification. The fielding of differentiated senior and
intermediate courses during Academic Year 2006-07 required the faculty
to be heavily engaged in curriculum development over the previous two
years. As a result, there was less opportunity for professional
development because of the increased demand on the faculty to build
separate and distinct curricula. The significant curriculum development
task and the initial certification of the revised College of Naval
Warfare course with embedded JPME Phase II ended with the 2007 PAJE.
After that, the College leadership made a conscious decision to devote
significant resources to faculty development. The increase in faculty
development over the next two years was so much so that it received
favorable comments on the draft report from the most recent PAJE in May
2009. The comment read ``Since the last PAJE visit, the CNW has
dedicated significantly more financial resources to faculty
development.'' The College has established a routine process for
faculty to plan and seek NWC funding for professional development
opportunities. The faculty can plan and schedule such opportunities on
an annual basis.
Faculty development at NWC promotes innovation, collaboration,
collegiality, and the art of teaching. Overall, the Faculty Development
Program is designed to enhance both the personal and professional
education and development of seasoned faculty as well as bring new
faculty members up to a common standard of instructor capabilities. The
three pronged faculty development approach of orientation, faculty
workshops, and individual development programs, coupled with the senior
faculty mentoring and evaluation of teaching abilities, provides the
students with an unparalleled level of experienced moderators who are
aware of the latest changes in the contemporary international security
and operations environment.
The College, with the assistance of the Naval War College
Foundation, has made a substantial effort to provide financial
resources, through its annual budgeting process, for professional
development, research, and scholarly publication. With over $600,000
earmarked specifically for faculty development, a substantial number of
faculty members have benefited from grants for travel to participate in
professional conferences or conduct research. Additionally, some
faculty members involved in the College's international outreach have
funded travel which also provides opportunity for research and
collaboration abroad.
Although there is no tenure system at the Naval War College and
none is under consideration, a very few senior professors have
appointments without terms (indefinite appointments) which establishes
eligibility to serve until retirement assuming that the faculty member
continues to perform at or above the expected level as outlined in the
Faculty Handbook. These indefinite appointments are awarded to
professors/research professors who have long records of accomplishment
that stand out even among the high achievements of others at that rank;
that show promise of further high levels of performance, achievement,
and service to the College; and whose expertise is expected to be
needed for an extended period. While this is certainly not tenure, it
is akin to it and is the program to which Rear Admiral Wisecup
referred.
Dr. Snyder. The terms ``training'' and ``education'' seem to be
used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the
difference and what part of your curriculum is training and which part
is education?
General Williams. There are extensive (and oftentimes competing)
bodies of knowledge on each subject. In simplest terms, training
focuses on ``what to think,'' ``what should be done,'' and ``how it
should be done.'' The focus is on the relatively short-term
accumulation of practical application of information, usually within a
fixed context of task, conditions, and standards, to enhance the
capacity to perform specific functions and tasks. Problems are more or
less straight forward, the circumstances of the issue are relatively
well known and understood by the individual, and use of established
procedures normally results in the one best solution to an issue.
Education, on the other hand, focuses on ``how to think.''
Education provides a broad body of general knowledge and develops
habits of mind applicable to a range of activities. Education fosters
breadth of view, appreciation of diverse perspectives, critical
analysis and abstract reasoning. In our context, at the strategic
level, ``how to think'' usually concerns large, complex and
unstructured problems for which there may be no fixed context of task,
condition, and standards. Indeed, conditions are likely to be highly
ambiguous and decision makers usually have less, not more, information
on which to make decisions. Decisions at the strategic level rarely
result in the one ``best'' solution. Rather, in this arena, decision
makers may be faced with choosing the least bad alternative, and
problems are more often managed, and sometimes not completely solved.
These conditions require students to build upon old knowledge and
experience to develop new knowledge that may be applied in new ways in
a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment.
Training and education are not mutually exclusive. Nearly all
training and education opportunities offer some elements of both
approaches. While the Army War College experience includes some
training (e.g., specific processes used within DoD, or the set steps of
the Crisis Action Process), students focus less on formats and
processes, and more on the critical thinking and synthesis of theory,
concept, and experience. Thus, while our students must master and
retain specific information, our curriculum focuses on the synthesis of
the multiple and multi-disciplinary skills necessary to ensure that
processes and systems produce feasible, acceptable, and suitable policy
options. This requires students to access their knowledge (as well as
20+ years of professional experience), analyze large, complex
situations, heuristically create new knowledge, and apply that new
knowledge to creative policy options to national level decision makers.
Dr. Snyder. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants
and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes
to be a faculty member. Can you describe a typical faculty member's
day? Do you yourself teach or mentor individual students? a. Unlike
civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty
members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants,
or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, and
writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside
the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals,
military and civilian?
General Williams. When teaching a core course, mornings are spent
teaching in the seminar. After class, instructors counsel and advise
students and review the day's lesson and prepare for upcoming lessons
individually and with their colleagues. Faculty have limited time for
research and writing.
When not teaching core classes, instructors conduct research to
support writing projects and curriculum development; prepare
instructional materials; and participate in various work groups at the
USAWC. They are frequently away from Carlisle Barracks supporting the
operational and institutional force in the US and overseas and engaging
in their communities of practice at conferences and workshops.
Faculty are engaged full-time during the New York City and
Washington, D.C. trips, the Strategic Decision Making Exercise, and the
National Security Seminar.
I attend classes regularly, both to observe students and faculty,
as well as to provide the benefit of my experience and perspective. I
occasionally lecture or facilitate instruction in a variety of our
courses. My most recent lecture (April) was to three seminars on the
ethical failure of Abu Ghraib and the limits of generalship.
Our curriculum structure allows faculty time to research and write.
When not in session, faculty can conduct research for curriculum
development or publication. In addition to sabbaticals, we offer both
temporal and fiscal faculty research grants. We fund attendance at
conferences and symposia that allow faculty to highlight their research
efforts.
While our curriculum structure frees up blocks of time, this
allocation of time is different from the experience of many of our
civilian faculty who are used to having days within each week that they
can use for research and writing. This requires some adaptability on
their part.
Our appraisal criteria examine how an individual faculty member
contributes to the overall mission of the USAWC: education, research
and publication, support to the operational and institutional force,
and strategic communications, as well as service to the institution.
The value placed on each element depends upon an individual faculty
member's primary duties.
In addition to formal appraisals, we also have an annual Faculty
Writing Awards Program that offers monetary prizes and a formal
recognition ceremony for award winners. Publications play a role in the
selection of honorary academic chair holders.
Dr. Snyder. Does having a master's degree program at these schools
detract from the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy
to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the
academic instead of professional education?
General Williams. No. The US Army War College is a professional
development institution that only secondarily awards a masters degree
due to the quality of our faculty, curriculum, and students. We must
not become a graduate school that only happens to award a secondary
professional qualification.
Our civilian regional accrediting body, the Middle States
Commission of Higher Education (MSCHE), has not asked us to do anything
that runs counter to our professional program. MSCHE personnel have
emphasized that they accredit all kinds of professional schools and
understand that we have professional standards that we must meet.
Over the last decade, we have increased the difficulty of our
programs, added more (and more complex) material, and increased
standards. But, these changes have been made not because of any
external academic pressure, but because it is the right thing to do for
the professional development of our graduates who face an increasingly
complex and difficult international security environment. To perform
well as advisers to senior leaders or ultimately as senior leaders,
requires our students to be exposed to a much broader set of more
complex ideas than may have been true 10-15 years ago. While some of
these concepts are academic in nature (e.g., critical and creative
thinking, organizational culture and behavior, negotiations,
international relations, or philosophies of war), these concepts are
examined, analyzed, and assessed within a professional context. More
importantly, our graduates will have to apply this professional
development in the real world if, as senior leaders (or their
advisers), they are to be successful in meeting the complex demands of
the 21st century security environment. As a result of these changes,
some of our students will discover that the Army War College does not
resemble their ``senior raters'' experience of 10-12 years ago, and may
find it convenient to blame the master's degree and ``academics.'' But,
in reality, while professional topics, demands, and standards have
increased, no new major, purely academic requirements have been added.
The greater risk of tilting the institutional focus may lie in the
type of faculty hired. If an institution hires only civilian faculty
with terminal academic degrees, but little or no professional
experience at the expense of hiring faculty with relevant professional
experience (and, appropriate advanced degrees), then academic faculty
may default to their academic perspective and eventually tip the
balance in an academic vice professional direction. It is incumbent
upon the College, Service and Joint leadership, therefore, to ensure
that our PME/JPME institutions remain focused on the professional
development of our students. This is not an argument against
appropriate academic rigor or qualifications, but rather for an
appropriate mix of the best of both the professional and academic
worlds.
Dr. Snyder. Do all of your students receive master's degrees--why
or why not? What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you?
Please be specific, is it more important to have an advanced degree in
specific areas like international relations, political science, a
regional study, or military or political history than it is to have a
PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering?
General Williams. All US students who meet the prerequisite of a
BA/BS degree are automatically enrolled in the Master of Strategic
Studies Degree (MSS) program. In effect, this means nearly 100 percent,
as only the occasional civilian student may not possess a BA/BS.
Academic failures are very rare in our Resident Education Program, more
frequent in our Distance Education Program. Student withdrawals (both
voluntary and involuntary) occur.
International Fellows are not enrolled until they demonstrate
appropriate English proficiency (usually via the Test of English as a
Foreign Language) and the equivalent of a US BA/BS degree (vetted
through an outside accrediting body). Roughly 60 percent of 40-43
International Fellows attending each year have earned the degree.
We look at all faculty recruiting from a holistic perspective. An
ideal uniformed candidate would be a colonel (or equivalent) with past
battalion and brigade command, service on a higher level staff,
possession of a terminal degree in an academic discipline within our
curriculum, senior level college credit, Joint Professional Military
Education Phase II credit, and past teaching experience. As very few
such candidates exist, we try to get the greatest possible number of
these qualifications from each candidate.
Professional credentials carry the greatest weight for our
uniformed faculty. Almost all military faculty are highly successful
colonels (or equivalent) with O5-level command experience and are
senior level college graduates. As the Officer Professional Military
Education Policy (OPMEP) stipulates that only 75 percent of military
faculty must be either Joint Qualified Officers or Senior Level College
graduates, we usually have 3-5 officers who possess neither
qualification, though they usually have a specific professional skill
(e.g., space operations, information operations, Foreign Area
Officers). Also, given the nature of our curriculum, we seek a wide
variety of specific military skills e.g.: planners with Service
Component Command or Combatant Command staff experience, OSD/Joint
Staff/Service Staff experience, force development and management, and
intelligence, to name a few.
In terms of academic credentials, it is more important for
uniformed faculty to have an advanced degree in a subject relevant to
the curriculum they teach, than an advanced degree, even a Ph.D., in a
discipline unrelated to our curriculum.
Dr. Snyder. What does ``top quality'' mean for civilian faculty?
Please be specific. a. Does not having tenure affect how professors
treat ``academic freedom''?
General Williams. Ideally, all civilian faculty would possess a mix
of both academic and professional credentials. While many of our
faculty possess dual skills, not all do. Therefore, civilian faculty
must be highly proficient in the skills for which they were hired. In
some cases, they require a terminal degree in the academic discipline
relevant to our curriculum. In other cases, they will require extensive
professional credentials in a major subject area that we teach (e.g.,
joint doctrine, force management, budgeting, DOD processes, theater
strategy and campaigning, or regional studies).
As a professional development institution, we are a student-
centered, teaching-centric organization; therefore, civilian faculty
must be good teachers. They must be particularly adept at facilitating
adult learning of seasoned professionals with 16-25 years of service,
using the seminar methodology. While we would prefer that faculty
arrive with this skill, it is a talent that can be developed over time.
All faculty are expected to conduct research and use that research
to enhance the curriculum. Faculty hired for an academic competency
should have an established publication record, or if relatively junior,
demonstrated the capacity for future publications. All faculty are
encouraged to publish in academic or professional journals. Where
appropriate, civilian faculty members contribute to doctrine and
concept development, the body of knowledge of the military profession.
We expect civilian faculty with appropriate credentials to help
support the operational and institutional force. This support includes
temporary duty in combat theaters, as well as support to Combatant
Commanders, the Joint Staff, Army Staff, or a wide variety of projects
to assist the Army's senior leadership.
In our most recent USAWC Faculty Climate Survey (22 Jun 09), 93
percent (strongly agree/somewhat agree collapsed) of our faculty
surveyed (N 117 of 184, or 64 percent; statistically adequate) that
they were free to discuss any ideas or material in seminar. Ninety-one
percent indicated the environment encourages free discussion and
inquiry. Eighty percent indicated that original thinking and academic
freedom are valued at the USAWC. Qualitative comments in the survey
reflect the numerical data. Based on this data, it appears that, by and
large, the absence of tenure is not a major influence on the health of
academic freedom at the USAWC. Nonetheless, academic freedom is
oftentimes a fragile relationship requiring continuous attention by the
USAWC leadership.
Dr. Snyder. Since you don't have tenure, what is the process for
renewal and non-renewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the
system? Do professors know six months before they are up for renewal
whether they will be renewed, for how long, and why? In a tenure system
people think the faculty members have all the power, in a no-tenure
system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How do you avoid
the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your
civilian faculty don't have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees
they do have and why they were hired.
General Williams. We provide detailed guidelines for all aspects of
employment of civilian faculty under Title 10 USC 4021 in our Carlisle
Barracks Memorandum 690-2, Employment Under Title 10 Code Section 4021.
We give a copy of this document to all civilian faculty upon hiring,
and it is available on our web site.
Appointments under Title 10 USC 4021 are time-limited. Not earlier
than 12 months and not later than 6 months prior to the expiration of
an appointment, the Department Chair or Director, based upon
discussions with the faculty member, recommends either appointment
termination or reappointment, along with recommended terms. The Title
10 Board provides its recommendations to me for approval. If the Board
recommends terms of reappointment less than that requested, we provide
written notification to the faculty member, who has an opportunity to
submit a written request for reconsideration through the Title 10 Board
to me. Upon my final approval, the faculty member and their supervisor
review the terms of the reappointment.
Sometimes the needs of USAWC change, leading to decisions not to
reappoint faculty members. This may be driven by a reduction in Federal
funds; a change in mission, curriculum, or workload; re-organization of
one or more departments, institutes or centers; or other compelling
reasons. In such circumstances, we will make a reasonable effort to
provide a minimum of 6 months notice to the affected faculty member(s).
The procedures used to implement the process are consistent with
applicable laws and regulations governing reduction in force. If
practicable and possible, at least a 6-month notice of termination will
be given to the individual(s) affected, but in no event will the notice
be less than 60 days. While we have changed he specifications of
several positions over the last decade, to date, I have not had to
implement any reductions to our Title 10 faculty.
Faculty may also be terminated for cause. To date, I have not
terminated any faculty members for misconduct or inefficiency.
Faculty members involved in a Title 10 action have access to all
the documentation sent to the Title 10 Board, and to the
recommendations that the Board makes to me. Any faculty member who
wishes to question his or her non-reappointment or termination may do
so by raising the issue through his or her chain of command to the
Title 10 Board. All decisions on appeals are documented in writing and
provided to the faculty member within one week of the decision.
Faculty usually, but not always, have at least six-month notice of
reappointment. But, the length of time depends primarily upon when,
within the 12-month window prior to the end of their appointment, that
the faculty member initiates the process. If submitted at the 12-month
mark, the process is routinely completed quickly and the faculty member
knows well before the six-month point. However, if a faculty member
waits until the 6-month point to submit their request for
reappointment, they obviously will have less notification time.
The primary mechanisms for avoidance of extremes and appearances of
arbitrariness are our adherence to established, easily accessible rules
that govern our procedures for reappointment and termination, and the
availability of a process for appeals and grievances. Further, our
faculty members have access to free advice and assistance from our
Civilian Personnel Advisory Center, our Equal Employment Opportunity
Office, and our Legal Assistance Office. Finally, our record on
reappointments speaks for itself. The vast majority of requests for
reappointment are approved, and many civilian faculty members serve
here until retirement. We have never had a successful challenge to a
non-reappointment decision.
Because we are a professional development institution, professional
credentials are imperative for key members of the faculty. In some
cases, there are no equivalent civilian academic credentials or
experience for some of our subject areas (e.g., certain military
specific disciplines, such as: joint and Army doctrine, campaign
planning, force management, DOD, Joint, and Army processes). Or, we may
find that a practitioner has the high level skills that a traditional
academic scholar may not possess.
Some brief examples may be illustrative. Although the Director,
Concepts and Doctrine, later completed his Ph.D. in Military History
(Temple University), he originally was hired because, literally, no one
in the world knows more about the organization of command and control
of Army headquarters at the Army Service Component Command level and
above. He also taught history at the U.S. Military Academy and served
on the faculty of the Armed (now Joint) Forces Staff College (JPME II)
for two years.
Our Professor, Resource Management, has a MS degree in Operations
Research and Systems Analysis. More importantly, he spent three years
on the Army Staff as the Chief, Resource Analysis and Integration. Few
in the Army understand the planning, programming, and budget systems
better. He routinely advises the Army Staff on resource matters.
The Professor, Strategic Art, Advanced Strategic Art Program,
brings 30 years of experience as a retired colonel Functional Area 59,
Strategist. A former USAWC Director of Theater Strategy and Elihu Root
chair holder, he is a Joint Specialty Officer and School for Advanced
Military Studies (SAMS) graduate with extensive on-the-ground
experience in every area of responsibility. He was a key planner for
Operation JUST CAUSE in Panama, and served as an interagency advisor to
and designer of the CENTCOM Joint Interagency Coordination Group in
support of OEF and OIF. From 2005 through 2008 he was a Joint Staff J7
contracted interagency specialist and posted to EUCOM with exposure to
the establishment of AFRICOM. He has became a recognized subject matter
expert on interagency operations and 'whole of government' approaches,
served on interagency transformation forums, and contributed to the
``Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase II Report'' and the Project on
National Security Reform's ``Forging a New Shield.''
Practitioners can bring unique skills that an academic career
cannot provide. Our Professor, Security Studies, served in the Pentagon
for over 20 years, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Special Operations Policy and Support), OASD, SO/LIC and Principle
Director, Strategy Plans, and Resources, OASD (Homeland Defense). He
brings unique insights into the workings of the Department of Defense,
Department of Homeland Security and other national security agencies.
His publication record adds further to his qualifications.
Similar professional qualifications apply to our representatives
from the Intelligence Community (CIA, DIA, and NSA). We are able to
supplement this expertise with our DeSerio Chair of Strategic
Intelligence (privately funded via an endowment), currently filled by a
former very senior member of the Intelligence Community. We also
benefit greatly from support by the Department of State and USAID,
which routinely provide three-four faculty members with tremendous
practical experience with the diplomatic instrument of power. Our Omar
Bradley Chair of Strategic Leadership (an annual, rotating visiting
professorship funded via our Army War College Foundation) oftentimes is
held by an experienced practitioner. For example, ADM (Ret.) Dennis
Blair, currently Director, National Intelligence, was Bradley Chair
holder in Academic Year 2007-2008.
Dr. Snyder. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire
``younger'' PhDs. Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or
practical experience to be able to hold their own with the caliber and
seniority of students you have? Does it mean you have to push out
``older professors'' who may be performing well in order to bring on
younger ones?
General Williams. Generally, we would agree that, given our student
body of 16-25 year professionals, civilian faculty need a certain
degree of seasoning to be effective. However, to a large degree, this
depends upon the individual faculty member and the discipline they
teach. We have several relatively younger (mid-30s) visiting professors
and full-time faculty who have done well in the seminar. If they have
the requisite academic and publishing credentials and are effective
teachers, our students respond well.
No, we believe that we can accomplish this over time through
routine attrition and hiring of replacement faculty. It is worth
noting, however, such opportunities are limited. Within our four
teaching departments, we have only 27 full-time civilian teaching
positions. Of those, we would classify only 20 of those as being
academically related disciplines.
Dr. Snyder. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and
student mixes while the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other
mix. Are the faculty and student mixes dictated for the various
institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate for Congress
to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA FY
2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a
requirement to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and
National must send ``50% plus one'' graduates to joint assignments. Is
this still appropriate? Should Service schools have some kind of
requirement?
General Williams. At the time of NDAA FY2005, we agreed that the
60/40 mix for Senior Service Colleges was appropriate; but that it put
us close to the tipping point of being able to remain--within a Joint
context--the Army's center of landpower excellence. Our experience
since 2006 has reinforced that conclusion. We do not believe that the
host percentage should be reduced below 60 percent.
We believe that, at the time, it was absolutely appropriate to
grant Senior Service Colleges JPME II credit, and is even more
appropriate today. Regardless of school, curricula are focused at the
strategic level, where all actions are conducted in a Joint,
Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational context.
Service Colleges should be assessed on how well they meet standards
for Joint education set forth in law and the CJCS, Officer Professional
Military Education Policy (OPMEP). This distills down to a combination
of Joint curriculum and interaction with students from different
Services, countries, backgrounds, and perspectives. The Joint Staff--
via the rigorous and comprehensive Process for Accreditation of Joint
Education (PAJE)--ensures that the Senior Service Colleges provide an
appropriate Joint curriculum. In the second instance, we know of no
objective evidence to assist in determining how many officers from
different Services, nations and organizations are required for
acculturation to occur. We remain convinced that NDAA FY05 provisions
and the OPMEP standards provide sufficient acculturation.
The issue of ``neutral ground'' may not be relevant. At the Army
War College, it's not simply about exposing Army officers to officers
from other Services. It's also about exposing officers from other
Services and backgrounds to the U.S. Army. Similarly, the lack of a
requirement to send graduates to Joint assignments does not appear to
be a relevant criterion.
With the granting of JPME II authority to Senior Service Colleges,
it may be appropriate to apply some assignment criteria (perhaps 50
percent plus one) to the overall output from all JPME II producing
schools, vice the existing requirement levied only on ICAF and National
War College. A comprehensive requirement would give Services more
flexibility in assigning students.
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes rigor in your educational program?
Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams?
Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if
so, of what length? Does rigor require increased contact time and less
``white space'' or vice versa?
General Williams. A response to this question requires some
context. Senior Level Colleges are not Ph.D. producing programs. They
are professional development programs leading to a master's degree
within the confines of the profession. Programs should be viewed and
students should be assessed accordingly.
For Army students, at least, depending upon career field only 4-8
percent of a year group will attend any form of Senior Level College
experience. And, these individual are selected from a group that
already has passed through a considerable winnowing process of multiple
promotion and selection boards. In short, these are highly qualified
and successful professionals.
Historically, the bulk of our students (77-81 percent between AY06-
AY09) arrive with at least one advanced degree. Of those, 3-7 percent
(depending upon the year) possessed a PhD/JD/MD. In one of our most
recent curriculum surveys (AY2009), over 90 percent of students
indicated (across eight different categories) that their USAWC
experience was equal to or more demanding than their previous graduate
experiences.
We should also recall that our students are very experienced
professionals, the great bulk of whom are intrinsically and highly
motivated to do well. Nor should we ignore the important effect of peer
pressure upon seminar dialogue. Few, if any, of our students wish to
appear unprepared or foolish in front of their contemporaries.
In this light, our evaluation system for each course relies upon
faculty assessment of the student's contribution (not participation, as
they can be two very different results), an oral presentation (time
allowing in the course), and evaluation of a written product (the
length of which varies from course to course).
The rigor applied to each of these mechanisms depends to a
significant degree upon the quality of the faculty member doing the
evaluation, the standards that the faculty member applies, the
consistency with which the faculty member applies those standards, and
the manner in which feedback is provided to the student.
Without some form of grading system, the ability to determine
student performance against learning objectives is not possible. Nor
without some form of assessment system can students receive appropriate
feedback on how well they have performed against those standards. But,
just as graduate schools use a wide variety of grading systems; Senior
Level Colleges should be free to use a system that best fits their
institutional needs.
Written exams may or may not be appropriate; depending upon the
institution's chosen evaluation mechanisms. But, as numerous high-
quality Ph.D. programs demonstrate, written examinations are not always
required for individual courses.
Written requirements are absolutely necessary. Our graduates will
increasingly use written communication as their primary means of
disseminating information and obtaining decisions. Good writing is a
reflection of good thinking, and good thinking skills are what we
require of our graduates. The nature of these writing mechanisms should
stem from the nature of work required by the profession. Most of our
graduates will hold positions where the two-page point paper will be an
art form. On some occasions, those point papers will be buttressed by
5-10 page supporting documents. Our evaluation mechanisms and writing
requirements should reflect those forms of professional communication.
That said, because writing is as much a thinking exercise as a research
exercise, we still require students to complete a 5,000 word (roughly
20 pages) Strategy Research Project.
The answer to the issues of more or less contact time vs. ``white
space'' depends upon the particular assessment mechanisms and
methodology used by a school. If class contribution is the primary
evaluation mechanism, then more contact time offers greater opportunity
to observe student contributions. Conversely, if research papers are
the primary mechanism, then students should have more time for research
and writing, with commensurate reduction in contact time. If written
tests are given, with the test material largely taken from classroom
lectures, then more time in class may be appropriate. Our mix of class
contribution, participation in group practical exercise, short papers
(5-8 pages), and point papers (1-3 pages) benefits from a different mix
of in-class instruction and time out of class for reflection.
We also want students to reflect on the curriculum in light of
their experience and what that may mean for their futures. Reflection
requires students to master the material, compare that substance with
their professional experience, synthesize new knowledge from that
comparison, and then to be prepared to use that new knowledge in
innovative ways to address issues that they will face in the future.
Reflection requires time, which argues for more ``white space.''
However, the need for more reflective time directly competes with
the already high and increasing demands from multiple DOD, Joint, and
Service leaders who place great faith in the ability of Senior Level
Colleges (and other JPME/PME institutions) to address or remediate many
of the problems currently facing the force. Demands to add more
subjects and material to our programs run the risk of diluting the
curricula to the point where schools may be unable to provide
sufficient depth of inquiry and time necessary for reflection. The
irony, therefore, is that to add rigor may require reducing the
curriculum, not adding to it.
Dr. Snyder. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates,
and graduates' supervisors to assess the quality of your program?
General Williams. The USAWC utilizes a variety of tools to assess
institutional effectiveness. The Office of Institutional Assessment
prepares and analyzes surveys of students, faculty and staff, alumni,
and flag officers. Our Institutional Assessment Plan and the Curriculum
Assessment Plan establish a process through which students, faculty,
and staff are surveyed; data are collected, analyzed, shared, and used
in planning and decision-making.
Students: Incoming resident students complete a pre-assessment
prior to arrival at the USAWC to determine existing levels of knowledge
in areas that students will study. Respondents to the pre-assessment
are administered a post-assessment survey to determine if statistically
significant differences exist between their pre-and post-assessment.
Students are requested to complete surveys on each of the core
courses, the Strategic Decision Making Exercise, electives, and a
comprehensive end of the year assessment of the resident and distance
education programs. While each Course Director (resident program) or
Course Author (distance program) provides input to the surveys, we
consistently address institutional level issues across all courses, to
include questions regarding the curriculum, course learning objectives,
faculty instruction, experiential learning opportunities, and overall
level of satisfaction with the course or activity. The USAWC leadership
uses the information for planning and assessment of the effectiveness
of the curriculum.
Students also complete exit surveys of the Resident, Distance, and
International Fellows programs that include questions on satisfaction
with program components, degree to which Institutional Leaning
Objectives were met, and overall quality of the USAWC experience. The
results are analyzed and summarized in a report to the Dean, Department
Chairs, Directors, and other individuals for purposes of continuous
quality improvement.
Graduates: For the USAWC curriculum to be effective, it must
address the requirements of the field. The USAWC leadership and faculty
must know that what is taught is what is needed for USAWC graduates to
function effectively. To ensure that the curriculum reflects
requirements of the field, the USAWC conducts periodic surveys of its
graduates once every two years as part of its curriculum evaluation and
strategic planning cycle.
Graduates' Supervisors: General Officers of the Army, Army Reserve,
and the Army National Guard are surveyed formally once every two years
to obtain their views on the USAWC curriculum which are incorporated
into curriculum revision. Respondents give their views toward the
primary focus of a Senior Service College, skills senior officers will
most need in the next 10 to 15 years, and adequacy of the USAWC
curriculum.
Dr. Snyder. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why
or Why not?
General Williams. We do not see the necessity of such an
initiative. On a professional level, the CJCS via the Joint Staff
oversees and accredits our JPME producing programs. The Army via
Training and Doctrine Command oversees the Army PME portion of our
curricula. Academically, the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education (our regional accrediting body) oversees the accreditation of
the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. Adding a fourth layer of
oversight seems neither useful to the PME/JPME institutions nor an
efficient and effective expenditure of resources.
Dr. Snyder. Ethics--what should be the role of ethical education at
the senior schools beyond ``just war'' theory?
General Williams. The teaching of ethics at senior service schools
should go far beyond that of ``Just War'' theory. If we want our
students to advise and act to do what is right for the Nation, it is
important and necessary for them to consider and study moral
understanding, to understand the nature of personal responsibility, and
to be able to think about and discuss ethical issues without confusion.
This is difficult to do without some education on the ideas that have
been developed and discussed by many of the greatest minds over the
centuries. To that end, the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) treats the
study of ethics in a holistic way, with an integrative approach to the
core and elective curriculum. I'm confident that a similar approach
exists in the other Senior Service Colleges and at the National Defense
University, but I'll limit my response to the Army War College
experience.
Ethics has for years been identified as one of our ``enduring
themes'' to guide our curriculum development and education experience.
As such, the USAWC formally presents the study of ethics across the
core curriculum. Chronologically, the students review the role and
importance of Ethical Reasoning as a dedicated lesson within our
Strategic Thinking course. They study Just War Theory (justification
for war and just conduct in war) during our Theory of War and Strategy
course. Then, students study Ethics of the Military Profession and
Ethics for Strategic Leaders during two lessons in our Strategic
Leadership course. A new reading this year will focus on the ethical
use of power and authority as strategic leaders contemplate their roles
in acquisition, resource stewardship, and advancing the health of their
institution. During this course, we also host a funded guest lecturer
to present to the students and faculty on the ethical perspectives of a
national security issue of current interest. Finally, students study
civil-military relations during our National Security, Policy, and
Strategy course.
Ethics retains a prominent role in our elective program, with a
highly subscribed course entitled, ``Ethics and Warfare.''
Additionally, in academic year 2009, Ethics was the theme of our
Commandant's Lecture Series, during which we hosted a number of
internationally recognized speakers on a range of related topics
including issues like: the limits of dissent and the role of
proportionality in 21st Century.
I am convinced that a broad exposure to--and application of--the
study of ethics throughout the year of senior service schools is
crucial to the preparation of our students for continued service and
leadership at more senior levels, both in their Services and in
governmental agencies. We continue to look for such integrative
experiences at the US Army War College at Carlisle Barracks.
Dr. Snyder. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or
Consultants, separate from your University's, so it could focus just on
your mission?
General Williams. As the USAWC is not part of a university system,
our Board of Visitors focuses solely on the USAWC mission.
Dr. Snyder. The terms ``training'' and ``education'' seem to be
used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the
difference and what part of your curriculum is training and which part
is education?
General Forsyth. We do not use these terms interchangeably at the
Air War College. Air Force doctrine differentiates between education
and training as follows: ``Although both education and training are
essential to operational capability, they are fundamentally different.
Education prepares individuals for dynamic operational environments,
while training is essential in developing skill sets for complex
systems . . . . the distinction between their essential natures remains
critical to the success of each.'' *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* AFDD 1-1 ``Leadership and Force Development'' 18 Feb 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This doctrine document distinguishes education from training
through the following comparisons: *
1. Training
a. Functions best within defined parameters and expected
environments
b. Develops skills that are usually limited to the specialty
related to that skill set
c. Does not involve developing logic talents to create new thought
d. Diminishes in value with uncertainty; the further the situation
progresses from the talents of the individual, the less effective the
individual becomes in implementing a successful solution
2. Education
a. Prepares people to cope with ill-defined parameters and reduce
uncertainties
b. Prepares the individual to think critically and creatively
leading to solutions of unfamiliar problems
c. Increases in value in the face of uncertainty and continually
evolving situations
d. Open-ended, looking strategically at relationships, synergies,
and second/third order effects
Air Force doctrine also highlights the dominance of education at
the strategic level stating ``education and training at the strategic
level assists in developing the skills to form accurate frames of
reference, make sound decisions, uncover underlying connections to deal
with more general issues, and engage in creative, innovative thinking
that recognizes new solutions and new options. At this level, education
assumes a predominant role in an Airman's development. Education
emphasizes understanding of broad concepts and offers insights into
complex issues not commonly available in operational environments. It
focuses on the institutional Air Force and joint, interagency,
business, and international views.'' *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* AFDD 1-1 ``Leadership and Force Development'' 18 Feb 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Air War College educational philosophy aligns with these
doctrinal tenets, focused on education at the strategic level in the
joint, international and interagency environment. Air War College
focuses exclusively on education, leaving training to be conducted at
the appropriate commander or functional course.
Dr. Snyder. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants
and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes
to be a faculty member. Can you describe a typical faculty member's
day? Do you yourself teach or mentor individual students? a. Unlike
civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty
members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants,
or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, and
writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside
the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals,
military and civilian?
General Forsyth. Understanding what it takes to be a faculty member
is an essential element of successful war college leadership. I do not,
however, feel it is fundamentally different from the challenge of
leading any complex organization; success does not require that the
leader maintain all of the same tactical-level duties and
certifications as line members of the organization. I maintain
awareness of what it takes to be a faculty member by observing seminars
and lectures, through course and curriculum reviews and through daily
interaction with the faculty and students. All of my subordinate
leaders such as deputies, deans, department chairs and course directors
maintain their faculty qualifications and actively teach in the
classroom. I act as a mentor for both faculty and students. From
setting my expectations at the start of the academic year to periodic
meetings with faculty and student leaders to sessions with the entire
student body, my leadership style is personal, direct and hands-on. I
have given numerous lectures in the leadership series and in the
warfighting course in addition to addressing several elective classes.
A typical faculty member's day varies according to the academic
calendar. While the faculty member's core course is ``on the boards''
(typically three to five months of the year), the majority of the day
is spent advising student research, teaching and preparing to teach.
The average week consists of two or three three-hour classroom
sessions, usually two faculty workshops to prepare for those sessions,
with the remaining time spent in preparation for class. When ``off the
boards'' faculty members will still advise students and most likely
will be developing curriculum for the next academic period. They may
teach an elective course one or two days a week, pursue individual
research interests, and attend conferences or other faculty development
events to ensure they stay current and relevant.
a. Unlike civilian university professors who emphasize research,
your faculty members generally do not have teaching assistants,
research assistants, or set office hours. When do they have time for
service, research, and writing? How much research and writing do you
expect them to do outside the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed
on their appraisals, military and civilian?
Although the Air War College does not have teaching or research
assistants, we do have supporting structures, for example, that assist
faculty members by obtaining copyrights for articles and assembling and
producing course readers. The faculty and students collaborate on
research projects which can result in edited volumes. Civilian faculty
members participate in sabbaticals for research, including a standing
agreement to provide one faculty member annually to the Air Force
Research Institute to share research time between directed topics and
topics of personal interest. When not on sabbatical, a faculty member's
workplan typically specifies completion of one journal article and one
op-ed piece as minimum annual requirements. Military faculty members
are expected to produce at least one journal article during their tour
at the Air War College. Supervisors assess research and writing for
both civilian and military faculty on annual appraisals based on
individual workplans which outline expectations in the three areas of
teaching, research and publication, and service to the institution. The
Air University Commander has outlined these expectations for faculty at
all Air University schools. Teaching is priority one for all faculty,
followed in priority by research then service for civilian faculty and
service then research for military faculty. Within that broad
guidance, supervisors build annual workplans for each faculty member,
articulating specific, individually-tailored expectations and goals in
the areas of teaching, research and publication, and service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source AUI 36-105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The research results speak for themselves. Over the last three
academic years, Air War College faculty members have produced 13 books,
26 book chapters, and 69 journal articles. Faculty members have five
books in the queue for publication in the coming academic year.
Dr. Snyder. Does having a master's degree program at these schools
detract from the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy
to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the
academic instead of professional education?
General Forsyth. The Air War College focuses first and foremost on
delivering the best possible professional military education. Because
we maintain the rigor of a graduate school with a PME curriculum
created and taught by a highly-qualified graduate faculty, we have been
able to achieve accreditation for our master's degree from the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools. This is a virtuous circle as
accreditation helps us attract faculty members who are second to none,
which in turn improves our PME curriculum and teaching.
The decision to maintain accreditation provides a master's degree
for our graduates and translates into civilian terms the importance we
place on rigorous education. We did not seek the master's degree for
its own sake but rather as an acknowledgement of the quality of the PME
educational experience and the importance of that experience to the
Service. I believe that an academic focus and a professional education
focus are complementary rather than conflicting.
Dr. Snyder. Do all of your students receive master's degrees--why
or why not? What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you?
Please be specific, is it more important to have an advanced degree in
specific areas like international relations, political science, a
regional study, or military or political history than it is to have a
PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering?
General Forsyth. All US students, military and civilian, selected
to attend Air War College in residence who possess a bachelor's degree
or equivalent from a US college are enrolled in the master's degree
program and will receive a Masters of Strategic Studies upon successful
completion of Air War College. International Fellows who possess a US
bachelor's degree or its equivalent (or meet admission requirements
through the portfolio admission process) and meet English proficiency
requirements by achieving a qualifying score on the Test of English as
a Foreign Language (TOEFL) may apply for admittance into the master's
degree program. International Fellows who do not qualify, or choose not
to apply, to the master's degree program receive an Air War College
Diploma but not a master's degree upon graduation.* On average,
approximately one-half of the 45 International Fellows are admitted to
the master's program. Thus approximately 90% of the students in an
average Air War College class receive master's degrees while the
remaining 10% are international fellows who either choose not to apply
or do not meet the master's admissions standards. Air War College
perceives the master's degree as giving credit to the students where
credit has been earned since the program meets the master's degree
accreditation requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: AUI 36-2323
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you? Please be
specific, is it more important to have an advanced degree in specific
areas like international relations, political science, a regional
study, or military or political history than it is to have a PhD in any
subject even if that was in math or engineering?
Air War College defines top quality uniformed faculty as those who:
possess a master's degree in a curriculum-relevant subject, are
graduates of in-residence senior-level PME, are joint qualified
officers (JQO), have commanded at two levels (squadron and group or
wing for Air Force and equivalents for other Services), and have the
background (air/land/sea/space/cyberspace operations, support, etc)
necessary to fill a specific faculty vacancy. The Air War College only
pursues top-quality uniformed faculty, but does so with the whole
person concept in mind and with an eye toward fielding a diverse
faculty with the breadth of military experience necessary to develop
and teach the curriculum. For example, the Air War College definitely
prefers to have faculty members with PhDs in fields relevant to the PME
curriculum such as history or international relations. But so few
officers with such advanced degrees also have two levels of command and
are JQOs that we may, with full knowledge, hire someone without all of
those credentials to get a uniformed PhD faculty member who meets our
current requirements and needs. Conversely, a candidate with a PhD in
an area such as math or engineering may not fare well in the selection
process without two levels of command or JQO status since those
terminal degrees are not as applicable to the curriculum. The ability
to make such judgment calls is essential to recruiting and maintaining
the highest quality military faculty possible with the diversity of
experience needed to teach and refresh the curriculum while still being
current and relevant.
Dr. Snyder. What does ``top quality'' mean for civilian faculty?
Please be specific. a. Does not having tenure affect how professors
treat ``academic freedom''?
General Forsyth. Air War College defines a top quality civilian
faculty as those who have: experience in the subject matter sought in
the vacancy, evidence of academic activity and service, a record of
publication in peer-reviewed outlets in the subject matter sought or
related fields, and evidence of outstanding teaching and superior
credentials. The Air War College's recent track record on hiring top
quality faculty is very good; we recently hired a PhD from the
University of Chicago who was teaching there and a PhD from Harvard
University who was teaching at the London School of Economics. The
majority of our civilian faculty members have earned their terminal
degrees in top-30 universities such as Harvard University, University
of Chicago, University of North Carolina, Georgetown University,
University of Illinois, etc.
Tenure is an issue for some members of the faculty. There have been
in the past some candidates vying for vacant faculty positions that
have either voiced their concerns or withdrawn themselves from
consideration after discovering we do not have a tenure track. The most
often cited benefits of a tenure system would be to protect faculty
members from the vagaries of faculty management policy changes and to
provide additional reassurances on the promise of academic freedom.
Air University has a clearly articulated policy on academic freedom
which is an amended form of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) definition of academic freedom. The Air University
Policy states: *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source AUI 36-2308
Air University faculty, students, and staff are members of a
learned profession, and members of their respective educational
organizations. The free exchange of opinions and ideas is
essential to the educational process and, to the greatest
extent possible, faculty, students, and staff are encouraged to
speak and write freely. Even in this academic setting, however,
the importance of the University's military mission requires
limits on some types of expression. For example, in accordance
with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commissioned
officers, officer trainees, and cadets may not use contemptuous
words toward the President, Vice President, Congress, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and
others. In addition, military members may not make
disrespectful remarks about a superior commissioned officer,
nor may an enlisted member make a disrespectful statement
toward a superior noncommissioned officer. In addition to these
specific restrictions on military members, faculty, students,
and staff should remember that the public might judge the armed
forces or Air University by their spoken or written statements.
In any public forum, Air University faculty, students and staff
members should make every effort to indicate clearly that the
opinions they express are personal to the member, and do not
represent the official views of their organization, Air
University, the United States Air Force, the US government, or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
any other government or academic community.
The concerns some faculty members have expressed about variability
of faculty management policies requires a more detailed explanation.
The authority for hiring and reappointing civilian faculty members
rests with the Air University Commander, not the Air War College
Commandant. Air University offered a tenure track for Air War College
faculty until 1 May 2003.*** Without tenure, the length of an
appointment period has been a concern for faculty members. Air Force
policy states that initial appointments will not normally exceed three
years.** Air University policy is that subsequent reappointments after
that initial three-year term are for periods of one to five years While
the faculty maintains confidence in the Air War College Commandant's
ability to represent their interests adequately at the Air University
level, some find disconcerting the fact that, in the absence of tenure,
their Commandant is not the decision authority for reappointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Source AFI 36-804
*** Source AU Sup to AFI 36-804
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Snyder. Since you don't have tenure, what is the process for
renewal and non-renewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the
system? Do professors know six months before they are up for renewal
whether they will be renewed, for how long, and why? In a tenure system
people think the faculty members have all the power, in a no-tenure
system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How do you avoid
the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your
civilian faculty don't have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees
they do have and why they were hired.
General Forsyth. Currently, the Air University Commander is the
authority for reappointing civilian faculty members, not the Air War
College Commandant. Therefore, Air University outlines the
reappointment process in the Air University supplement to Air Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-804 ``Civilian Faculty Pay Plan for Air University
and the USAF Academy.'' Implementation guidance for Air University
Instructions is contained in Spaatz Center for Officer Education
Operating Instruction 36-3, ``Faculty Management,'' and Air War College
supplement to AFI36-804, ``Air War College Civilian Faculty Pay Plan
Procedures.'' A brief summary of the process follows.
The reappointment process normally begins 12 months prior to the
expiration of a faculty member's current appointment. Air University
policy requires that any non-renewal decision must be communicated to
the faculty member in writing at least 12 months before the effective
date for those on an appointment of two years or longer.* The faculty
member's supervisor prepares a staff summary sheet which details the
faculty member's current appointment data and the requested
reappointment terms. The faculty member's vita or resume is attached as
supporting documentation and forwarded to the Dean of Academics and the
Air War College Commandant for review. The Air War College Commandant
signs the staff summary sheet and sends the renewal package to the Air
University Commander for approval. Once approved, the faculty member's
supervisor explains the terms of reappointment approved by the Air
University Commander to the faculty member. In most cases, these should
be the same terms the Commandant recommended with the initial package.
In those cases where the approved terms are different than the ones the
Air War College Commandant recommended, the rationale for the change
will be communicated back to the faculty member. There are two
exceptions to the general procedures as outlined: one for renewal of
faculty completing their initial appointment and one for faculty being
nominated for the maximum five-year renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source AU Sup to AFI 36-804
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air War College faculty members seeking renewal upon completion of
their initial appointment assemble a more detailed package summarizing
their teaching, research and publication, and service to the
institution during their initial period of appointment. This package is
submitted to the Air War College Review Group, a faculty advisory
committee that makes recommendations to the Dean of Academics on
initial reappointments and promotions. Members of the committee, two
military and three civilian, are senior faculty members elected by
their peers. The committee makes its recommendation on reappointment to
the dean, who forwards it along with the more detailed reappointment
package to the Air War College Commandant for review.
The second exception to the normal process occurs when the Air War
College Commandant requests a five-year reappointment. It is Air
University policy that the longest reappointment period will be five
years. The current Air University policy is to not accept a five-year
reappointment request until 120 days prior to the expiration of the
faculty member's current appointment rather than 12 months prior as is
the case for reappointments of less than five years.
In a tenure system people think the faculty members have all the
power, in a no-tenure system it appears that the school has unlimited
power. How do you avoid the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness?
The levels of review and approval in the reappointment process, the
use of standard reappointment periods and the peer review provided by
the College Review Group for initial reappointments mitigate against
extremes and arbitrariness. Without tenure, however, the length of an
appointment period has been a concern for some faculty members. Air
Force policy states that initial appointments will not normally exceed
three years.** Air University policy is that subsequent reappointments
after that initial three-year term are for periods of one to five
years.* While the faculty maintains confidence in the Air War College
Commandant's ability to represent their interests adequately at the Air
University level, some find disconcerting the fact that, in the absence
of tenure, their Commandant is not the decision authority for
reappointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Source AFI 36-804
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many of your civilian faculty don't have PhDs or JDs? Be
specific about what degrees they do have and why they were hired.
Fully 20 of the 21 authorized Title 10 civilian faculty members
have a terminal degree. The one civilian faculty member without a
terminal degree is currently serving in the leadership department. He
was hired based on his demonstrated teaching ability, as well as the
understanding of military leadership that he demonstrated to the hiring
committee, developed from his extensive record as a successful leader
in both combat and in peacetime. He possesses a BA from Auburn
University in American History, and a Masters of Military Art and
Science from Central Missouri University.
Dr. Snyder. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire
``younger'' PhDs. Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or
practical experience to be able to hold their own with the caliber and
seniority of students you have? Does it mean you have to push out
``older professors'' who may be performing well in order to bring on
younger ones?
General Forsyth. The Air War College has no intention of ``pushing
out'' older professors to bring in younger ones. Furthermore, we would
only consider hiring a candidate who can and will be relevant and has
demonstrated through the hiring process that he or she would excel in
our seminar teaching environment. Effective teaching is our number one
goal.
Dr. Snyder. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and
student mixes while the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other
mix. Are the faculty and student mixes dictated for the various
institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate for Congress
to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA FY
2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a
requirement to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and
National must send ``50% plus one'' graduates to joint assignments. Is
this still appropriate? Should Service schools have some kind of
requirement?
General Forsyth. I believe the 60% host, 40% other faculty mix is
appropriate for the Air War College. Because civilian faculty are not
included in the faculty mix calculation, it is important to note that
uniformed Air Force officers only comprise one-third of the total Air
War College faculty, a much lower percentage than the 60% military
target would indicate. The Process for Accreditation of Joint Education
(PAJE) rigorously administered by the Joint Staff confirmed that Air
War College is meeting the joint learning outcomes dictated by the
officer professional military education policy. The 40% non-host
faculty requirement gives us enough sister-service officers to meet the
acculturation goals of Phase II joint professional military education
while preserving enough room on the faculty to cover the breadth of Air
Force experience needed to educate officers on the strategic role of
the air component in joint, interagency and multinational operations.
With respect to Joint assignments for the graduates, this is really
an issue for the individual service personnel system and the needs of
the individual services. The Headquarters Air Force A1 Personnel office
has expressed to me that for NDU they continue to support the 50+1. All
that said, it is important to note that the quality of Air War
College's joint education is not influenced by whether the officer is
going immediately to a joint assignment, or going to command after
graduation with the potential for a joint assignment to follow.
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes rigor in your educational program?
Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams?
Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if
so, of what length? Does rigor require increased contact time and less
``white space'' or vice versa?
General Forsyth. Rigor encompasses grading, active learning
(seminars, reading, research and writing) and accountability for
student performance. The Air War College program combines all of these
elements to create a rigorous academic program. Students receive letter
grades in every core and elective course. Grading for all courses
measure student performance in deliverables such as papers, essay exams
and presentations as well as class participation against objective
criteria. 80% of the Air War College program is devoted to active
learning: individual reading, exercises and seminar discussions. All
exams given at the Air War College are in-class essay exams or take-
home papers varying from 5 to 15 pages in length. Students complete a
professional studies research paper of approximately 20 pages with the
goal of publishing their work in a journal. The key measure of rigor is
not contact time, but time spent in active learning. Rigor is not
increased by adding additional hours to the program, but by maintaining
seminar interaction and student accountability during the contact hours
on the schedule. The ``white space'' on the schedule is anything but
time off. It is essential time scheduled to give the students time to
prepare for class, during which they are held accountable for their
classroom participation.
Dr. Snyder. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates,
and graduates' supervisors to assess the quality of your program?
General Forsyth. The Air War College executes an aggressive closed-
loop feedback process to assess quality and constantly improve our
program. While any student can critique any event, each week during the
academic year we ask one third (rotating thirds) of the AWC class to
provide feedback for the lectures, seminars, readings, and guest
speakers delivered that week. These surveys provide a method to detect
and influence immediate trends. At end of each core and elective
course, all students and the faculty who taught the course are asked to
provide feedback on the effectiveness, structure, relevance, and
workload of the course as well as whether the course achieved its
stated educational objectives. Just prior to graduation, we survey the
students on the overall program, soliciting their feedback on whether
the program achieved our published educational outcomes, the proportion
of curriculum devoted to various courses, instructional methodologies
and support. The end of course and graduate survey return rates give us
a 95% confidence that the survey results accurately reflect the opinion
of the student population within 5%. Finally, surveys are sent to
graduates and the graduates' supervisors approximately 18 months after
graduation to determine how the educational program helped the
graduates perform in their current positions. All of this survey data
is used to inform decisions of the curriculum builders, and is briefed
to the commandant as part of the course approval process.
Dr. Snyder. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why
or Why not?
General Forsyth. I was not yet the Air War College Commandant when
OSD had a Chancellors office and therefore am not personally aware of
all of the functions that office served. That said, it is my opinion
that the Air War College currently receives sufficient guidance and
oversight from the Air University Board of Visitors, the Air University
Staff, the Air Force staff via the Air Force Learning Council, the
Joint staff via the Process for Accreditation of Joint Education and
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools through accreditation
of the master's degree program.
Dr. Snyder. Ethics--what should be the role of ethical education at
the senior schools beyond ``just war'' theory?
General Forsyth. The Air War College program features a strong
emphasis on ethics and we recently expanded the role of ethics
education in the curriculum. Additionally, we emphasize the distinction
between legal behavior and ethical behavior. Specifically, our Joint
Strategic Leadership course incorporates the following instructional
periods: establishing organizational ethics and values, ethical
military leadership and just war, ethical dilemmas for senior leaders,
and senior leader failures. Additionally, we offer the following
electives which also deal with the subject: Legally Leading the Fight;
New Mercenaries--The Causes and Consequences of Military Privatization;
Command and Conscience; Right, Wrong, and In-Between: Ethics and Senior
Leaders; Just War Theory and Application: Classical Wisdom and
Contemporary Conflict; Why Insurgencies Win (and Lose) and Comparative
Civil-Military Relations.
Dr. Snyder. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or
Consultants, separate from your University's, so it could focus just on
your mission?
General Forsyth. Not in my opinion. When the decision was made to
pursue accreditation for Air University rather than accrediting
individual schools, the then-existing advisory boards for individual
degree-granting schools were abolished and replaced by the single Air
University Board instituted under the auspices of the Air University
Chief Academic Officer. The Air War College receives sufficient
guidance and oversight from the Air University Board of Visitors, the
Air University Staff, the Air Staff via the Air Force Learning Council,
and the Joint staff via the process for accreditation of joint
education. I see no additional value for an Air War College board of
visitors separate from the existing Air University board.
Dr. Snyder. Has full funding been secured for the Field Studies
component of the Regional and Cultural Studies Course.
General Forsyth. The Regional and Cultural Studies Course has been
underfunded since 2003 as the costs of travel continue to rise while
the available budget has remained unchanged. Indicative of the value
Air War College places on this course, we reduced the scope of the
field study while diverting funds from other needs such as faculty
development travel to pay for this program. Cost cutting measures taken
included reducing the number of days for field study from 14 to 12,
visiting fewer countries, reducing the number of trips, cutting faculty
members on each trip from three to two, booking circuitous but less
expensive travel and purchasing non-refundable airline tickets. For
unrelated reasons, the Air War College student load was reduced 10%
last academic year which reduced overall costs and allowed the budget
to cover approximately 99% of the program.
As we make our cost estimates for the coming academic year, we
believe the costs of the Regional and Cultural Studies Course will
exceed our current budget by $120K. Having exhausted all cost saving
measures we can implement and still execute a viable educational
course, any more cuts will result in cancellation of the program. In
previous years, Air War College and Air University have been able to
shift funds from other programs in the year of execution to make up the
Regional and Cultural Studies budget deficit, though growing budget
pressures may ultimately place this program at risk.
Dr. Snyder. The terms ``training'' and ``education'' seem to be
used interchangeably quite a bit. Can you tell me how you define the
difference and what part of your curriculum is training and which part
is education?
Colonel Belcher. Thank you for this insightful question. It cuts
directly to the core of the Marine Corps War College's organizational
mission and educational philosophy. The Marine Corps develops
exceptional leaders though a tailored combination of training,
experience, and education gained throughout each Marine's career.
Training is a formalized process wherein students develop skills and
behaviors in order to address known issues and events. It begins with
entry-level training and is sustained through the completion of
advanced schools and courses. Conversely, education is an experiential
process wherein students develop the ability to think critically and
creatively in order to address unexpected issues or events. Education
allows the student to see beyond training and personal experience to
operate successfully in a complex and dynamic environment. Per the
direction of the 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Alfred
Gray, ``the education will emphasize how to think and stress the
development of a logical thought process.'' The Marine Corps adage that
best summarizes the difference is: ``We train for certainty, but
educate for uncertainty.''
For this reason as military officers and government officials
progress through their careers, the emphasis of their professional
development correspondingly shifts from training to education.
Consequently, as the Marine Corps' Top-Level School, the Marine Corps
War College s focused almost exclusively on education. The College's
objective is to educate them to think independently and innovatively
about the strategic military issues facing our Nation, rather than to
train them for their next position. Therefore, the curriculum is broad-
based and balanced, embracing not only military matters, but also
history, philosophy, culture, economics, geography, and geopolitics, to
provide the student with a wide intellectual aperture to view the
world. The curriculum does include minimal training, primarily focused
on the implementation of Department of Defense and Marine Corps
policies such as equal opportunity, sexual assault prevention, suicide
awareness, and safety. Even when presenting such training, the College
seeks to expand the students understanding of the issue through
critical analysis and open discussion. In this way, the College can
better prepare students to not only adhere to such policies, but to
establish and enforce such policies in their future roles as strategic
leaders and planners.
Dr. Snyder. The 1989 Skelton Panel Report said all the Commandants
and Presidents should teach so that they would understand what it takes
to be a faculty member. Can you describe a typical faculty member's
day? Do you yourself teach or mentor individual students? a. Unlike
civilian university professors who emphasize research, your faculty
members generally do not have teaching assistants, research assistants,
or set office hours. When do they have time for service, research, and
writing? How much research and writing do you expect them to do outside
the sabbatical windows? How is this assessed on their appraisals,
military and civilian?
Colonel Belcher. The Marine Corps War College is first and foremost
a teaching organization. However, in order for the faculty to maximize
their educational effectiveness, they must continually grow though
scholarly research and professional development. Recognizing this fact,
the College's leadership affords the faculty significant autonomy in
scheduling their daily routines to meet their professional educational
requirements as well as their personal scholarly needs. Consequently,
each day may vary based on the particular faculty member's
participation in curriculum development, curriculum presentation,
reading, research, or professional development activities. Typically, a
faculty member will arrive at the College in the morning to finalize
preparations for the first seminar. After reviewing correspondence,
conferring with colleagues, and reviewing the courseware, the faculty
member commences instruction. The faculty member then teaches either
one three-hour seminar or two two-hour seminars based on the subject,
the chosen instructional methodology, or the desired student-to-
instructor ratio. The afternoon is generally reserved for the faculty
member to conduct student counseling, mentoring, course preparation,
professional reading, and research. Faculty members frequently
capitalize on this time to participate in meetings, symposia,
conferences, and panels which advance their expertise in education as
well as their respective field of study.
In academic year 2009, I taught the College's course entitled
``Economics as an Instrument of National Power'' to include leading a
field study trip to the New York City Financial District. Additionally,
I mentor the students regarding personal, professional and academic
issues throughout the year. To that end, I conduct initial,
intermediate and final interviews with each student. Each week during a
Director's synthesis session, I query the students individually and
collectively regarding the effectiveness of the curriculum and its
presentation. I also meet weekly with the Student Class Leader to
respond to questions and resolve concerns. Finally, I personally mentor
each of the Marine Corps students. I monitor their academic progress
and provide personalized guidance to prepare them for follow-on
assignments to senior-level staff and command billets.
Although the College is primarily a teaching institution, faculty
members are highly encouraged to conduct independent research and
writing. The objectives of this effort are twofold and mutually
supporting. First, such projects keep the faculty members up to date in
their respective field of study, allowing them to better educate their
students. Secondly, such projects enhance the College's academic
reputation while expanding its outreach efforts. Due to the individual
and organizational benefits derived from such endeavors, faculty
members are granted time in their daily schedules to conduct reading
and research. While not required to research and write, faculty members
are rewarded for doing so. Such extracurricular efforts are noted on
performance appraisals and factored into the selection of faculty
members for personal recognition or rewards.
Expanded research opportunities are available to the faculty
through the Marine Corps University's Personal Development Offsite
Program. After completing five years of continuous service, teaching
faculty members may apply for a six- month professional enrichment
period during which he/she is expected to enhance his/her professional
abilities while producing an academic product.
Finally, the College is currently assessing the viability of
implementing an internship program wherein local civilian graduate
students would be given the opportunity to serve as Research
Assistants. This program would provide the interns with a greater
understanding of US military and government organizations and
operations while earning them academic credit at their parent
institution. It would provide the faculty with assistance in expanding
the breadth and depth of their research efforts.
Dr. Snyder. Does having a master's degree program at these schools
detract from the PME mission, not from the standpoint of it being easy
to accredit existing programs, but that it may tip the focus toward the
academic instead of professional education?
Colonel Belcher. The master's degree program does not detract from
the Marine Corps War College's professional military education mission.
In fact, it enhances it. Following his testimony before the House Armed
Services Committee on July 12, 1989, the 29th Commandant of the Marine
Corps, General Alfred M. Gray, directed the development of ``a world-
class'' educational institution for the study of war and the profession
of arms. In August 1990, an elite group of six Lieutenant Colonels
convened to participate in ``The Art of War Studies Program,'' the
precursor of the Marine Corps War College. Since then the College has
grown in size and scope, yet remained true to its charter and intently
focused on producing the Nation's next generation of strategists.
In August 2001, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) accredited the College to grant a Master of Strategic Studies to
students who successful complete the curriculum. By focusing on how to
teach, vice what to teach, SACS scrutiny of the curriculum added
increased rigor and discipline to the process of preparing, presenting,
and assessing professional military education. Though routine
interaction SACS personnel and periodic assessments, the College was
able to better leverage civilian educational ``best practices'' then
apply them to the instruction of military strategy and war-fighting.
Due to lessons learned from SACS accreditation, the University
implemented numerous progressive educational measures to include the
establishment of a rigorous course development process as well as the
institution of a Board of Visitors and a Directorate for Institutional
Research and Effectiveness.
Dr. Snyder. Do all of your students receive master's degrees--why
or why not? What does top quality in uniformed faculty mean to you?
Please be specific, is it more important to have an advanced degree in
specific areas like international relations, political science, a
regional study, or military or political history than it is to have a
PhD in any subject even if that was in math or engineering?
Colonel Belcher. All of the students who successfully complete the
Marine Corps War College Master of Strategic Studies curriculum are
granted a diploma. Students who fail to successfully complete the
master's degree curriculum, yet complete the course are granted a
certificate of completion. Due to the high quality of military officers
and government officials selected to attend the Marine Corps War
College, no student failed to earn a master's degree in since the
College began awarding degrees in 2001.
My definition of a ``top quality'' military faculty member is an
officer who has demonstrated exceptional proficiency and exemplary
professionalism in both operational and academic environments. Such an
officer should be broadly educated, yet possess the occupational
expertise and operational experience required to present timely and
detailed instruction. The officer should be a graduate of a Senior
Level Service College, possess at least a Master's degree, and be a
designated Joint Qualified Officer. In fact, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff requires that 75% of the faculty be Senior Level School
graduates or Joint Qualified Officers. The Marine Corps War College is
in full compliance with this criterion. Preferably the candidate should
also have experience as an instructor at a military or civilian
graduate-level institution. The officer should possess both
occupational and operational credibility gained through recent
experience in command and staff positions. Lastly, the officer should
be competitive for positions of higher rank and responsibility. The
College policy is to risk continuity for capability and select upwardly
mobile officers who may transfer early due to their selection for
promotion or command.
Historically, the other Services have provided the College with a
number of potential candidates for each Service Chair. When selecting a
Chair, the College leadership carefully evaluates each candidate's
level of education and area of study. All other factors being equal, I
believe an officer with an advanced degree in the specific area (i.e.
international politics, political science a regional study or military
history) he/she will instruct is preferable to an officer with a
terminal degree in a more general area of study (i.e. math or
engineering). A focused educational background lessens the learning
curve, enabling the incoming officer to more quickly master the course
material and commence instruction. More closely tailored academic
credentials increase an officer's instructional capabilities, as well
as his/her credibility and confidence. In my opinion, military
occupational and operational experience more easily compensate for the
lack of prestige and rigor of a terminal degree than the other way
around.
The military faculty is a vital to the currency and credibility of
educational program. Consequently, the College seeks only the best
candidates--those officers with the expertise, experience, and
education to instruct and inspire the Nation's future strategic
leaders, planners, and policy-makers.
Dr. Snyder. What does ``top quality'' mean for civilian faculty?
Please be specific. a. Does not having tenure affect how professors
treat ``academic freedom''?
Colonel Belcher. My definition of a ``top quality'' civilian
faculty member is a scholar and educator who possesses 1) expertise in
his/her respective field of study, 2) operational experience in
curriculum-related areas, 3) a general knowledge of adult educational
methodology and most importantly 4) a passion for developing curriculum
and teaching our unique type of student. Such an individual should
posses a terminal degree, yet remain a life-long student of his/her
craft, continuously pursuing greater understanding of the subject
though reading, research, reflection, and participation in scholarly
form. He/she should be proficient in written and oral communications,
able to translate complex issues into understandable terms applicable
to any audience--students or scholars. We have two types of civilian
faculty at the Senior Schools, Agency Chairs and Title 10 full-time
professors. A terminal degree is required for the Title 10 professors
and desired for Agency Chairs.
The lack of tenure does not affect the ``academic freedom'' enjoyed
by the faculty of the Marine Corps War College. As an institution, the
College believes that ``academic freedom'' is fostered by a positive
organizational culture, not guaranteed employment. It springs from an
academic environment in which faculty and students alike are encouraged
to voice their opinions on any relevant subjects in open, scholarly
debate without risk of rebuke or reprisal. Such opinions must be
expressed in a well-researched, well-reasoned, and rationale manner,
based on valid, empirical data and devoid of emotion. The College's
strict non-attribution policy also safeguards academic freedom. It
allows faculty, students and guest speakers who might otherwise be
hesitant to express their opinions to voice their thoughts without fear
of further dissemination. The College attempts to foster such an open
atmosphere by routinely hosting panels of subject matter experts to
debate controversial issues as civilian-military relations, media
coverage of military operations, and the impacts of repealing the
Department of Defense's ``Don't Ask; Don't Tell'' policy. Similarly,
the College encourages faculty and students to write and publish
scholarly works on topical issues. For example, one professor recently
submitted a chapter entitled ``The Sky Won't Fall: Policy
Recommendations for Allowing Homosexuals to Serve Openly in the U.S.
Military'' to the forthcoming Department of Defense book entitled
Social Policy Perspectives 2010. By providing a safe and supportive
organizational climate, the College generates more academic freedom
than tenure ever could.
Dr. Snyder. Since you don't have tenure, what is the process for
renewal and non-renewal of the civilian faculty? How transparent is the
system? Do professors know six months before they are up for renewal
whether they will be renewed, for how long, and why? In a tenure system
people think the faculty members have all the power, in a no-tenure
system it appears that the school has unlimited power. How do you avoid
the extremes and appearances of arbitrariness? How many of your
civilian faculty don't have PhDs or JDs? Be specific about what degrees
they do have and why they were hired.
Colonel Belcher. Civilian faculty members are hired under Title 10
authority granted to the President of Marine Corps University by the
Secretary of the Navy. Civilian faculty members are offered a one, two
or three-year appointment based on the needs of the college and the
individual's qualifications. New civilian faculty members undergo a
one-year probationary period during which their performance is
evaluated. During the period, they are supervised and counseled on a
periodic basis regarding their performance by the Director and the Dean
of Academics.
The faculty evaluation and renewal system is extremely transparent
to the individual. He/she will receive periodic counseling as well as
an annual performance appraisal. At least seven months prior to the end
of the faculty member's appointment, the Director of the college or
school recommends to the President of the University whether the
faculty member's appointment should be renewed and for what period of
time. If the University does not intend to retain an individual, the
individual will be formally and informally counseled regarding his/her
substandard performance and be given the means to improve. If he/she
fails to improve, his/her performance appraisal will document the fact
and state the reason for termination.
To avoid any appearance of arbitrariness, the College leadership
manages the civilian faculty in an upfront and forthright manner,
providing maximum transparency while maintaining open, two-way lines of
communication. First, the College ensures that all rules governing
policies and procedures are clearly delineated and equitably applied.
Each faculty member is provided a College Faculty Handbook and Marine
Corps University Title 10 Faculty Handbook which outlines the College's
policies for the handling of reappointments, terminations, appeals, and
grievances.
Second, demonstrating its long-term commitment to its faculty
despite the absence of tenure, the College invests time and funds into
an aggressive faculty development program. The program seeks to advance
the faculty members personal and professional abilities through
participation in functional area and academic meetings, panels,
conferences, symposium, field studies, courses, and classes. By
investing in each faculty member's development, the College develops a
stronger cadre of instructors while recognizing the symbiotic and
mutually supportive relationship between the individual and the
institution.
All, but one, of the College's civilian faculty members possess a
Doctorate or Jurist Doctorate degree. The sole exception is the
Department of State Chair who is a very seasoned Foreign Service
Officer and holds the rank of Minister-Counselor. A graduate of the
National War College, he also instructed at the Foreign Service
Institute in Arlington, VA. Between the six civilian faculty members
they hold five Doctorates, one Jurist Doctorate, and eight Master
degrees. Each was hired for their subject matter expertise, operational
experience, and academic acumen.
Dr. Snyder. Some of you have indicated that you wish to hire
``younger'' PhDs. Do you think they may need a bit of seasoning or
practical experience to be able to hold their own with the caliber and
seniority of students you have? Does it mean you have to push out
``older professors'' who may be performing well in order to bring on
younger ones?
Colonel Belcher. I define ``younger professors'' to mean those with
more academic and less operational experience than their counterpart
despite their age. Based on this definition, I believe that ``younger
professors'' bring an academic vitality to the curriculum that is
essential in keeping the curriculum current and vibrant. While they
cannot replicate or replace the operational experience or expertise of
``older professors'' they can balance it. They can offer an educational
counterpoint which challenges students and faculty alike to view old
issues through new eyes. Similarly, younger professors bring new
teaching methodology and technology (i.e. electronic courseware, blogs,
on-line journals), to the classroom which is more acceptable to younger
generations of students.
The ability of younger professors to ``hold their own'' against a
more senior student population is based on their professional
credentials and force of personality. To discount their capabilities
due to age or limited operational experience does a disservice to the
professor and students alike. Routinely, dynamic young scholars move
from academia to government administration, becoming the policy-makers
our students will work with in developing and implementing national
strategy. Consequently, in order to better to prepare our students in
an interagency environment, the Marine Corps War College seeks the most
qualified, vice the most senior, professors to instruct its students.
This same effect can be achieved by increasing the academic interaction
between Senior Level Service Colleges and the civilian graduate-level
national security programs (i.e. The Johns Hopkins University School of
Advanced International Studies, The Georgetown University Security
Studies Program, Yale University, and Princeton University) who utilize
younger professors to instruct. Our students would also benefit by
interaction with the students enrolled in these civilian programs since
frequently they consist of future government leaders, administrators
and policy-makers. With this objective in mind, the College launched an
ambitious academic outreach program to engage the Directors of
prestigious civilian national security programs in order to conduct
curriculum consultations, share'' best practices,'' and identify
mutually beneficial collaborative educational opportunities.
Professorial positions are filled based on availability, College
requirements, and the evaluated merits of the candidates. However,
given normal attrition rates and the College's ongoing expansion
program, integration of younger professors can be done incrementally
without adversely affecting the careers of more established faculty
members.
Dr. Snyder. National and ICAF have 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 faculty and
student mixes while the Service schools have a 60% host and 40% other
mix. Are the faculty and student mixes dictated for the various
institutions still appropriate? If so, was it appropriate for Congress
to allow the Service senior schools to award JPME II credit (NDAA FY
2005) despite their lower ratios, non-neutral ground, and lack of a
requirement to send any graduates to joint assignments? ICAF and
National must send ``50% plus one'' graduates to joint assignments. Is
this still appropriate? Should Service schools have some kind of
requirement?
Colonel Belcher. The 60% host (Sea Services: Navy, Marine Corps and
Coast Guard) to 40% non-host department (Air Force, Army, Interagency,
and International) student and faculty ratios are appropriate for the
Marine Corps War College.
Normally the College operates well below the student and faculty
mix ratios prescribed by the OPMEP. In academic year 2010, the College
will have a student mix of 42% (11 of 26 military students) host and
58% non-host department. Of the five military faculty members 60% are
from the host (3 of 5 military officers) while 40% are from non-host
departments. This ratio enables the College to add a Sea Service flavor
an otherwise generic joint curriculum. The 60-40 ratio allows the other
department students to learn Sea Service operational concepts and
experience the Sea Service culture and concepts without overwhelming
the joint curriculum. A lesser student ratio (i.e. 1/3, 1/3. 1/3) would
dilute the educational experience of attending the Marine Corps War
College. Consequently, it would deprive the Service Chiefs of the
ability to tailor their officers' education by assigning them to a
particular War College. If all the Senior Level Services Colleges'
student mixes and curriculum were the same, the Nation would loose the
intellectual diversity so critical to develop innovative solutions to
complex national security issues.
Despite the Service-specific aspects of the Senior Level Service
Colleges, Congress was right to grant authority for them to award JPME
II credit. Though instruction and interaction, the Marine Corps War
College immerses its students in a joint educational experience. The
College's curriculum is firmly founded on the enduring joint learning
areas and emerging special areas of interest identified by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These joint educational standards are
disseminated though the OPMEP and rigorously assessed by the Process
for the Accreditation Professional Education. Yet even without such
guidance, the College's curriculum would be joint-focused since its
emphasis is on the strategic-level of war which by its very nature is
joint, interagency and multinational. The College is acutely aware of
the changing nature of modern warfare and has worked diligently to
adapt its curriculum accordingly.
The era of Service-centric education has passed. No matter where a
graduate may be assigned, he/she will deal with joint, interagency,
and/or multinational issues. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Senior
Level Service Colleges to provide a robust joint education, adaptable
to any follow-on assignment. Regrettably, due to intense competition
for limited joint billets, it would not be feasible to direct the
Senior Level Service Colleges to implement a ``50% plus one'' policy.
Consequently, the assignment of joint billets should be left to the
Services and be based on 1) the needs of the Service, 2) the student's
past operational and academic performance and future potential, and
lastly 3) the student's desires. The Services make an organizational
investment each time they send students to the Senior Level Service
Colleges; therefore the Services should be afforded the opportunity to
determine where that education reaps the highest reward.
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes rigor in your educational program?
Does rigor require letter grades? Does rigor require written exams?
Does rigor require the writing of research or analytical papers, and if
so, of what length? Does rigor require increased contact time and less
``white space'' or vice versa?
Colonel Belcher. In this context ``rigor'' refers to those measures
utilized by an academic institution to challenge students and inject
discipline, objectivity, and consistency into the educational process.
To that end, the Marine Corps War College utilizes periodic written and
oral assessments to determine the student's ability to analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate (per Bloom's taxonomy) the information
provided in the course of the curriculum (to include classroom
instruction, field studies, and individual reading and research).
Graded assessments add rigor and competitiveness into the
educational process. Students at this educational level are high
achievers and strive for the highest grades. Nonetheless, while a good
motivational tool, grades are not the ultimate measure of a student's
academic achievements or progress. They are tools to gauge growth, not
goals in and of themselves, and should be used accordingly. Since
students enter the College with varying educational, occupational, and
operational backgrounds, they do not start the process at the same
place nor proceed at the same rate. Graded assessments are good
measures of a student's position relative to his/her fellow students,
but may not fully reflect his/her professional advancement. Also, we
have found that
In academic year 2009, the students were required to complete six
two-page writing assignments as well as an extensive 20-page, self-
selected Independent Research Project. The students were administered
six multi-question essay examinations. The students also presented
three oral presentations to include a defense of their Independent
Research Project. Additionally, each student was evaluated on his/her
participation in the Joint Land Air and Sea Simulation, an inter-War
College strategic war-game held annually aboard Maxwell Air Force Base,
Montgomery, AL. Finally the students were evaluated on their
contribution (vice participation) during the College's five core
course. Each assignment was subsequently evaluated by one or several
faculty members utilizing a standardize rubric and awarded a letter
grade. The grades for the academic year were tabulated and the top two
graduates (10% of the graduating class) honored for their superior
academic achievements. Their exceptional efforts were recognized and
rewarded during graduation and were noted on their academic fitness
reports. To encourage academic freedom and bold, audacious thought, the
College does not list the grades of its students on their academic
fitness reports or performance appraisals. At the graduate-level,
academic rigor means more ``white space'' not less. It means requiring
the student to do extensive reading, research, and reflection in
preparation for each seminar. After analysis, the students are required
to formulate and discuss their findings in a clear, logical and well-
reasoned manner. By their very nature, the College's students are
mature, highly-competitive and self-directed individuals who excel in
an indirect academic environment which allows them to integrate life
experiences in the exploration of new concepts and the solution of
novel problems. Like most adult learners, they need to know ``why''
before they commence their studies. Consequently, it is incumbent upon
the faculty to set the broad contextual framework for their studies and
then mentor the students as they follow their own path of educational
exploration. Adult learners are experiential learners. Consequently,
the College also relies heavily on exercises, role-playing, and case
study analysis. In such venues, students need ``white space'' to
analyze the situation, develop course of action, and reflect on their
role. Understanding the need for ``professional study and preparation
time'' the College dedicates each afternoon and one day per week solely
to individual reading, research and writing.
Dr. Snyder. Can you describe how you survey students, graduates,
and graduates' supervisors to assess the quality of your program?
Colonel Belcher. Working with and through the University's Director
of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning, the College has
implemented an expansive survey program. The program surveys the
College's students, graduates, and their supervisors to gain
information and insight regarding the quality and effectiveness of the
curriculum.
The first source of feedback is derived from course surveys given
to each student during the academic year. These surveys are given at
the end of each major block of instruction and ask the student to
comment on the overall quality of the course, the applicability of the
course material, the proficiency of the instructor, and the
effectiveness of the method of presentation. This information is
analyzed to determine the course's effectiveness in achieving the
stated learning outcomes. Much of the information gleaned from these
surveys is reiterated during the intermediate and final interviews with
the Director.
A second source of feedback is derived from surveys sent annually
for five years to graduates. The intent of these surveys is to assess
whether the educational experience adequately prepared graduates for
their follow-on assignments. A similar survey is sent to each
graduate's immediate Supervisor or Reporting Senior. This survey gains
``the customer's perspective'' on College's educational effectiveness.
A third source of feedback comes from faculty and staff interviews
with senior military officers and government officials. Throughout the
academic year, faculty and staff members query senior personnel
regarding the characteristics and capabilities expected of the
College's graduates. Such interviews are normally conducted during on-
site seminars or field study trips to Combatant Command, Component
Command, Service or Agency Headquarters.
The results of each of these surveys is analyzed and fed into the
College's annual curriculum review process. The results are then
utilized to refine the College's curriculum and teaching methodology to
improve educational efficiency and effectiveness.
Dr. Snyder. Should the OSD Chancellors office be reestablished? Why
or Why not?
Colonel Belcher. No, I do not believe that there is sufficient
benefit--to OSD, the Services, or the individual institutions--in
reestablishing an OSD Chancellors office. As configured, the current
system provides sufficient oversight and guidance to the development,
presentation, and assessment of joint military education.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acting on his own and
through the Joint Staff (specifically the Joint Education Branch (J-7))
is able to accurately monitor the current status of joint professional
military education, identify existing and emerging strategic issues,
and modify the curriculum accordingly. With an ear to Congress, the
Secretary of Defense, the Combatant Commanders and the Service Chiefs,
the Chairman is in the best position to determine the needs of our
future strategic leaders and planners. This guidance serves as the
basis for CJCS Instruction 1800.01C, Officer Professional Military
Education Program, which is the foundation for the Senior-Level Service
College's joint, interagency and multinational curriculum.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps provides the next level of
academic scrutiny and educational guidance. Working through the
Commanding General, Training and Education Command and President,
Marine Corps University, he ensures that the War College provides a
joint professional military education which reflects the culture and
operational concepts of the Corps, yet remains firmly founded in joint
doctrine. His guidance ensures that the joint curriculum is flavored
with Marine Corps intangibles such as an understanding of national
power projection and a lean, expeditionary and agile mindset. In doing
so, he provides his fellow Service Chiefs with graduates who are
uniquely capable to understand the Marine Corps and lead joint,
interagency, and multinational organizations.
Finally, the Southern Association of Schools and College provides
the academic oversight and guidance required to ensure that the joint
curriculum meets the standards of modern post-graduate education.
These three levels of review are adequate for addressing each
aspect of professional military education--Joint, Service and academic.
A fourth level of oversight would not add sufficient benefit to warrant
the additional burden (time, energy, resources, and personnel). The
recommendation to reestablish an OSD Chancellor's office, implies that
the current system is broken which, based on the rigorous curriculum
and high quality of graduates, it clearly is not. Therefore, the
reestablishment of such an office is not required or desired.
Dr. Snyder. Ethics--what should be the role of ethical education at
the senior schools beyond ``just war'' theory?
Colonel Belcher. ``Just War'' theory is just a fraction of the
ethical education needed and taught at the senior professional military
education schools. The fundamental emphasis of the senior schools is an
attempt to bring about a change in the incoming students' thinking from
the tactical or operational level to the strategic level. The
discussion of leadership and ethics, which are inextricably
intertwined, must be a central feature in that growth. If our graduates
are to advise senior leaders or act in the best interests of our Nation
with a moral component to their decision-making matrix, they must be
grounded in the theory and practice of ethics, beginning with ethics in
the profession of arms. The Marine Corps War College treats the study
of leadership and ethics in a holistic manner with not only a core
course dedicated to those topics, but also with opportunities to
explore ethical dilemmas in other courses of study.
The Marine Corps War College recognizes each incoming student's
status as a mature, experienced professional. The fact that the student
is selected to senior service school strongly suggests that he or she
already knows much about the subject of leadership and ethics, has
excelled as a leader at the tactical and possibly operational levels
and has the potential to rise to very senior leadership positions. The
College's Leadership and Ethics course provides each student an
opportunity to examine the competencies he/she already possess in the
light of their future roles and responsibilities. Through reading,
research, role-playing, case study analysis and interaction with
strategic leaders, they study leadership in the complex and uncertain
interagency, joint and international environments where there may be no
right answers, only difficult decisions.
The Leadership and Ethics course begins with a study of critical
thinking, creative thinking, decision making, and a cultural overview
and then explores ethics and the profession of arms, the ethical and
philosophical foundations of western philosophy from antiquity to the
post-middle ages, and the ethical use of military force. It then
continues with strategic decision making, collaborative decision
making, leading change and the legal and moral implications of the use
of force in humanitarian interventions.
Throughout the year other courses explore ethical considerations to
include classes on such issues as civilian-military relations, ``what
is an American,'' the American military tradition, torture, gays in the
military, and war in traditional society. Exploration of ethics
continues through the year as the students debate topical issues and
interact with scholars and strategic leaders in small group settings.
The exposure of students to ethical questions throughout the academic
year is crucial to the preparation of our Nation's future senior
leaders.
Dr. Snyder. Should each school have a Board of Visitors or
Consultants, separate from your University's, so it could focus just on
your mission?
Colonel Belcher. No, a Board of Visitors or Consultants should not
be established for each subordinate school. A single University Board
of Visitors is adequate and appropriate for assessing the overall
institutional effectives of the University and guiding it in achieving
its educational mission. A single Board is a more efficient and
effective means to guide the University and its subordinate schools. A
single Board represents a more judicious use the time and energies of
the President, the subordinate school Directors, as well as the Board
members themselves. It also simplifies and clarifies the channels of
communication to and from the Board.
Inherent in the concept of multiple Boards of Visitors or
Consultants is the risk that such Boards may provide conflicting or
competing guidance to the various schools, and thereby induce undue
turmoil. Multiple Boards, providing conflicting advice, would undermine
the integrity of the University concept. Marine Corps University truly
operates as a University rather than a conglomeration of separate
schoolhouses operating independently from one another. The President,
as the Marine Corps' advocate for professional military education, must
depend on a single Board with the same overarching professional
military education focus, rather than multiple Boards with a restricted
single schoolhouse focus.
Further, the Marine Corps University, not the subordinate colleges
and schools is regionally accredited by the Commission on Colleges of
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award master
degrees. The Commission on Colleges requires a single Board of Visitors
to oversee and advise the President of the University. Multiple Boards
providing parochial advice could jeopardize the University's regional
accreditation. Given his/her seniority and authority, the President of
the University is in the best position to receive and review a single
Board's input; then apply it where applicable within the University. If
the President determines that more scrutiny is required for the
University at large or one or several schools in particular, he can
increase the frequency of Board meetings or tailor the agenda to
address a focused area of concern.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to questions regarding
your Marine Corps War College. I would like to thank the Subcommittee
for its unwavering support of the College since its inception in 1991.
Due to the Subcommittee's diligent efforts the College has successful
produced generations of strategic leaders, planners and policy-makers,
and is on track to become the world-class institution for the study of
the profession of arms and war envisioned by General Alfred M. Gray in
1989. Semper Fidelis!
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
