"Teams" or "School House"

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

It is a choice between short term and long term goals and vision.

Now, I have my own opinion and it is biased since I'm on an ODA. But, which would you choose and why?

A wise man I respect very much once told me:

"When faced with a choice between the short-term and the long-term,
there is no choice."

[uboat509]

While I aknowledge the value of having your best guys in the schoolhouse, I personally learned more the teams I was on than I did in the schoolhouse. Instructors can impart some of their knowledge and experience but they have POI that they must adhere to. On a team, the experienced guys can teach what needs to be taught the way it needs to be taught. I was an 18C and when I got to my first team, I discovered that I used probably less than 10% of what I was taught in the 18C course. I did do a lot of the stuff that the instructors told us that we would be doing but that was not in the POI. I am now back in the schoolhouse reclassing to 18D and it is still in a contstant state of flux here. The POI will never change fast enough to meet the current needs of the teams. That's why I think that the teams will need to retain a lot more of the experienced guys, because that is where the most pertinant learning occurs.

SFC W

[kawika]

I agree on the teams needed the manning. Now that we are "100% strength" most of that 100% is people right out of the course. Experienced guys are always needed on the teams. There are people getting out by the boatloads. An attractive option is more civlian instructors, although obviously more costly. As long as there is a POI at the end of the day someone whos been through 1-2 deployments or on a team for 2-3 years can teach at the schoolhouse and then get right back to the team afterwards.

The only way to learn combat lessons is by having been there. No amount of schooling or combat experienced instructors will fix that. Those guys need to be on the teams, especially the ones deploying that have like 1-2 guys that have been downrange before.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by kawika

........ An attractive option is more civilian instructors, although obviously more costly.........

Actually, as many have found out, a GS-11 instructor makes less than an SFC on active duty in both take home and benefits. So it would be cheaper to go civilian. However you can not go entirely civilian as you need the fresh TTPs and experience to keep the course fresh. To also relate to the student what is occurring at that moment and what they can expect.

Originally Posted by kawika

..................The only way to learn combat lessons is by having been there. No amount of schooling or combat experienced instructors will fix that. Those guys need to be on the teams, especially the ones deploying that have like 1-2 guys that have been downrange before.

This is true to a certain degree but combat experiences taught in the classroom will prevent the new guy from making some errors.

Bottom line, the new kids need someone that has been there and done that and give them the feeling of survival. It also gives them an important break from the ODA so they and their family can breathe.

Another 2 cents from the FOG.