Quote:
|
Originally Posted by exsquid
Thanks for all your replies, the input is greatly appreciated and valued. IRT to Reaper's comment, I do not advocate removing any areas of concentration. IMO the course as currently taught is way too short. I think the course should be much longer, and I can honestly say I have heard almost every member of the cadre voice that opinion as well. The cadre keep telling us that the headshed takes our imput seriously so I figure why not shoot for the stars when asking for more training. In the end it is not going to benefit me and I do not expect much to change, but at least I tried to make it better for the guys behind me. Thanks again.
x/S
|
After working in SWCS for six years total, having sat on numerous curriculum review boards, and spending two years running SF Engineer training, I can tell you that is not a realistic view. I have seen plenty of critiques suggesting that, but it has never been seriously considered.
In fact, if anything, leadership is probably trying to figure out how to make the course shorter, not longer.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|