Another view from Leavenworth: We're doing better than Professor Murray thinks

By Col. Steve Boylan (U.S. Army, ret.)


Best Defense guest respondent

I have some feelings
towards the article that
Dr. Murray wrote that is up on Best Defense. I saw this article the other
day and it has garnered a bit of discussion here among some of the faculty. There
are a few things I would like to point out, if I may.

First, the furlough did
not have a major impact on the students or faculty (expect pay for the civilian
faculty and some early prep issues for classes on Monday vice later in the week where we would have had Friday to prep and
some additional research time). Had it continued for longer, unknown -- but
suspect it would have started to have significant impact on students and
faculty.

Second, to say the students
should come to CGSC with the knowledge/understanding of what they get here is
inaccurate and a bit disingenuous. Up to this point, most of the captains
(promotable) and new majors have only worked at the direct level (meaning
company), some at battalion and higher, and if so, for only short periods of
time. They know the direct level of leadership and that of direct level
operations/tactics, logistics, etc.

Here is the difference:
We are not talking direct level anymore. We do not want them to be company
commanders anymore. We are focusing their education and thinking on the
organizational level (battalion level), which could be considered the cusp
between direct and organizational and brigade and higher. Our previous students
over the past few years had more experience in that area, but the new classes
we are receiving have not. It is going back to the way it was before 9/11 where
very few, and soon, if any, will have had battalion level jobs.

Third, as for this being
a graduate school like its civilian counterparts -- to some degree, yes, but
not as much as the article led its readers to believe. The graduates do not
automatically receive a graduate degree. Only those that put in the extra
effort for their Masters of Military Arts (MMAS) or are part of the joint
efforts between University of Kansas or K-State. But to equate it to a civilian
university/college is again a bit false since our students are on a different
path and the military is different. CGSC is a professional school for a
professional education at a specific point in the officer's professional
development. The Army is going to be only sending 55 percent of a specific year
group to attend the resident CGSC course. The officers that do attend will have
been board selected and are expected to be the top 55 percent of their year
group.

Many are not aware of the
dynamics of the class makeup. Each class is broken up into teams with four
staff groups to each team. Each staff group of 16 officers consists of one
international officer, one or two sister service officers, and the remainder U.S.
Army officers. We also have at times interagency civilian members that make up
the staff group of sixteen. The mix of branches from the Army is carefully
constructed to ensure there is, as much as possible, a representative from each
branch or functional area in attendance to have a well-rounded staff group,
including female officers. It is not always perfect, but the mix is usually
pretty good. 

CGSC instructors who are
a mix of active-duty officers and civilians (civilians are usually but not
always retired lieutenant colonels and above) take great care in facilitating
discussions among the students. This is not a lecture course. Granted, in some
of the classes from each department, there at times are more instructor-based
discussions due to the topic, but the goal is to have the students, after doing
their homework (readings), using what they have read, coupled with their
experiences and using critical and creative thinking, have a thoughtful
discussion on the topic(s) being covered.

In several of my staff
groups from the past, the students have maintained after they graduated an
email distribution list to keep in touch, provide lessons learned, and to seek
assistance from each other as well as some of their instructors as needed. The
networking and relationship garnered during the academic year can be with them
for a lifetime.

A key point is that
during their initial discussions from their staff group advisor and many of the
instructors, the students are informed that this may in fact be the last
professional military education they receive. In this manner they need to take
advantage of all that is offered.

CGSC is in constant
change with the curriculum, schedule, new electives being developed and
offered, guest speakers, and updates that occur from the field. I would venture
to say that we are as different from a civilian college as Harvard is different
than high school.

Could there be more open
space on the schedule? Sure. Is there a lot for the students to do? Oh yes
there is, but why is that bad? Could we provide more time for student
reflection? Probably so, and that would not be bad, but human nature what it
is, there would be those that would not take advantage of the time. Would the
faculty enjoy a bit more time for research and writing? -- overall probably a
majority would say yes, but I have seen over time there no lacking for those
that take the extra time and effort to put forth articles for publication.

A common error happens
when we continually compare civilian education to that of military education.
They are different and have different purposes and desired outcomes. There is
always room for improvements in any organization, CGSC included, and I daresay
any other civilian academic institution.

Steve Boylan
is a retired colonel having served as both an Army aviator and public affairs officer,
and is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Command and
Leadership at CGSC. These thoughts are his own and do not reflect the official
position of CGSC or the U.S. Army.