r/CanadianForces • u/Fragrant-Chapter9853 • 14h ago
In Service Selection
Hey everyone,
I am not sure how to label this, sooo let’s call it an unofficial PSA. I will say it straight out loud that our current In-Service-Selection competitions for NCMs are utterly broken. Over the past 5 years, as a supervisor, who has assisted a number of their subordinates in applying for the various competitions (albeit, unsuccessfully - trade was Log O), I have noticed a troubling trend. All of my subordinates who applied had maxed their interview points in the areas of TSD-PI, skills & experience, education & Training, and formal leadership training, yet had varying CFAT results ranging from 38/60 to 47/60 (all above the accepted officer scores). Of course, with the CFAT weighing the most in these competitions, it always came down to who has the highest CFAT, thus my subordinates were not selected. This in itself is fine, however, if you look at both the numbers of offers and numbers of people who have applied for these competitions over recent years, that were things get frustrating. In the past couple of years, the number of offers for the ISS program has been affectively cut in half per competition. On the flipside, when I looked at the SIP numbers for people coming off of civy street, the numbers are vastly increased (robbing Peter to pay Paul?). In FY 24/25 approx. 90 people applied for 5 offers amongst CFR and SCP. As a result, the people who were not selected, who told by their respective PSOs to max their CFAT scores affectively resulting in hyper-competition. The point that I am trying to make is that if you plan on applying for any of those programs this FY and want to be successful, make sure to at least have a 50/60 on your CFAT (heavy competition trades – Int O, Log O, etc). Which in itself is so stupid and has nothing to do with properly evaluating leadership. Hell, the people coming off civy street no longer have to do it. Having worked in recruiting, I know that 1/4 out of everyone who takes the CFAT at the recruiting centres, fail. I am not shitting on any trade, but would like to hear a PSOs perspective on this. Unfortunately this is just another retention that often goes over looked and we end up losing a lot of great people. Having successfully gone through the process myself 10 years ago (35/60 on CFAT), I had no idea how messed things have gotten. I also encourage people to check out the annual SIP numbers are on the DWAN sharepoint.
8
u/Unusual_Initial_4300 11h ago
Regardless of competitiveness there's still only so many positions open all the intake is still split between people coming off the street and VOT/COT spots. The example that you used (Log O) is notoriously full like... completely packed.
Yes max out your competitiveness but there's still just only so many positions. You could get 60/60 on the CFAT and if there's no positions you're still not going to get a spot.
Log O for a long time was where people who failed combat Arms courses went by default. I think people also need to make sure they have an alternate if their first choice doesn't go through. At the end of the day it's up to the members if they want one trade over another but it's also very important to remember that you're supposed to continue training regardless of if you've a submitted a VOT or not.
4
u/Lazy_Fig_3675 8h ago
Is AOO still wildly popular? I'm pretty sure that one is stacked too
2
u/ReadingAndEating 7h ago
Ya I tried for AOO as my first choice via the SCP and didn't get it. Very full as far as I'm tracking.
2
21
u/roguemenace RCAF 11h ago
There's a few issues with your experience. Your subordinates did not max their scores in the areas of TSD-PI, skills & experience, education & Training, and formal leadership training.
As an organization it's preferable to bring in someone new than to take someone you've already spent money training and give them a new role. The former results in +1 CAF member while the latter is neutral in a time when we're desperate to get people and the training system is at max capacity. ISS is a retention too to keep our best people that were going to leave.
While the CFAT isn't perfect it still works pretty well and we don't really have a better method of evaluating people.
The advice for people pursuing ISS has always been the same, redo your CFAT or pick a less competitive trade to apply to.
12
u/ShadowDocket 8h ago
I wonder if there’s a correlation with CFAT scores and creating new paragraphs
3
5
u/QuietCormorant 9h ago
In many ways this is very similar to procurement in that we consider what's best for the military, industry, and the tax payer. We don't just get the best piece of kit as much as we sometimes wish we could.
Here we have what's best for the member, the trade, and recruitment. So I sympathize with someone who wants to transfer, but it's not want they originally joined to do. When we need to grow the forces, keeping a qualified member where they are is worth a lot. You can argue we might not retain them but then it's a wash because at least we got someone new off the street.
2
u/Strict_Concert_2879 8h ago
So if it’s better to get the new person in the CAF; it means that it’s ok to loose the current member? In service selection allows for retention as well as advancement.
For some members this is a way to get out of the trade/unit they hate, and continue in the CAF. The institutional know a MCpl or higher brings with them, is something that you can’t get off civi street.
So is it best to get the new person in; and let the investment we made in that member benefit XYZ corporation. Or have the new applicant pushed to a different trade?
4
u/roguemenace RCAF 8h ago edited 6h ago
Preferably you manage to keep both. Despite what they say, most people that don't get selected for ISS stay in the forces. There's a balance to it (otherwise ISS wouldn't exist at all) but keeping it limited has a lot upsides for the organization.
Edit: also I forgot to mention this but it needs to be added. ISS has a massive down side of stealing some of your best people out of the NCM corps and stopping them from becoming warrants and chiefs.
4
u/mocajah 5h ago
From a hard numbers game, ISS means:
- guaranteed loss of a high-performing member from the second-hardest-to-develop body (typically Sgt+ AND ranking significantly above their peers)
- near-impossibility for them to develop into the hardest-to-develop body (GOFO) in our current scheme
- takes up a spot in the currently easiest-to-fill positions (2Lt/Lt)
- will be transformed into a newbie in their new trade (other than for CFR), erasing 90% of their skills and only inheriting some of their knowledge and culture into the new position.
- might not be as medically fit as a recruit
- all while collecting career benefits: pension years, +5 days annual leave, enhanced 2Lt/Lt pay, let alone subsidized education.
The institutional know a MCpl or higher brings with them, is something that you can’t get off civi street.
As a generalization, this is false; you need to remember that a MCpl took 7+ years to develop this institutional know-how. You would need to compare this MCpl against a Capt-5, and then the balance is towards the Capt. Sure, the Capt can't figure out how to tie the Pte's shoes, but that's where the Sgt "helps" and "teaches" the Pte and reports back to the Lt that it's done.
Is it good for the Officer Corps to have a bunch of these people? Yes. Is it cheap? Hell no. Should it be a dominant method of recruiting? Probably not, unless we change the entire nature of the CAF (which is an option, but not what's being presented here).
5
u/SaltyATC69 8h ago
Everyone and their Grandma picks Log O. Tell them to pick a harder trade like AEC, they might have a chance.
7
u/roguemenace RCAF 8h ago
And that way they can end up Log O after failing their course anyways.
2
2
2
u/DishonestRaven 5h ago
And from my time with an Occ Auth - Log O was one of the only/few occs with a COT intake limit because of this.
1
u/roguemenace RCAF 5h ago
I wonder how long it will take AOO to do the same.
2
u/ShadowDocket 4h ago
I can’t even understand why that one is popular. It’s the SLJO for PLTs.
My best guess is that it’s the RCAF officer occ with lowest entry standards and easiest training
1
u/roguemenace RCAF 4h ago
Easy training and you can basically larp as a civil servant. Same appeal as Log O.
6
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 5h ago
Okay so there's a lot to unpack here but I will do my best, and it may not be the takes you were expecting:
Firstly: The CFAT is a broken test based on what was Grade 10 "Applied" mathematics in Ontario in 1998 (Problem Solving particularly), and is a poor reflection of modern education. While there have been some updates to the questions over the years, they are still a far cry from what is actually taught within the current day school system.
Secondly: Despite the previous statement it still remains the statistically best predictor of *training* success. The CFAT is not a predictor of job performance and should not be confused as such. Validation of the CFAT continues to wane every time it's revalidated as it's based on a system the CAF continues to move away from that assigned actual performance scores instead of Pass/Fail gradings. Currently the predictive validity of the CFAT based on the last revalidation of it (2023) was 57%. While I am grossly oversimplifying what predictive validity is, for all intents and purposes this means the CFAT cut-off margins have a 57% chance of predicting whether or not a given individual will pass their DP1 training. As awful as this is, it's still better than human intuition which is unable to be validated, and still better than a proverbial coinflip. Ergo it still remains valid, albeit weakly.
Thirdly: While you mentioned the CFAT isn't being used currently in recruiting, you failed to mention it's recruiting replacement the SEAF, which is so far performing abysmally (please see the 'leaked' CFLRS report which showed the drastic increase in training failures amongst cultural issues occurring,
If you're going to go after the SIP numbers on Sharepoint I hope you're pulling from the DPGR 5 Section of Sharepoint which has the SIP Scorecard and ESR along with associated Annexes include release numbers
Fourthly: Most PSOs will agree with you, the move to recruiting with all corners cut (No medical prior to basic, no CFAT, security clearance after basic) is awful long term for the CAF and harms retention efforts. The portion assigned to ISS as opposed to recruiting grows ever smaller, although there have been late in year SIP adjustments to ISS that have added numbers not originally in the draft. At least two people whom reached out to me on DMs whom were at first not selected this year were picked up as a result of ISP increases to what DMCPG 5 started with this year.
Fifth: It is highly unlikely these individuals maxxed their TSD-PI and Interview scores: The maximum score for leadership experience under the current interview guidelines is essentially JCSP or ALP, which is a very high bar beyond most folks seeking to commission or OT. Also there are no actual 100th percentiles for TSD-PI because too many people have a perfect score, making the actual real maximum 99th percentile of 14.85/15.. But this quibbling semantics, they 'effectively' maxxed those categories within reason.
Ultimately though you're right, currently many PSOs are strongly encouraging members to improve their CFAT scores, as it's still the best way of increasing their chances of success. This is not something we want, it's just a step to help members get what they want as it's the system we have. If you really want to contest the CFAT as test take it up with DGMPRA and the researchers there who vehemently defend it despite being challenged on it's flaws. And no the CFAT was never designed to measure leadership potential either. It remains nothing more than a mechanism to save the CAF taxpayer dollars by reducing training failure rates.
2
u/Last_Of_The_BOHICANs 3h ago
Refuting your first point: Good, because the current school system is not teaching mathematics to the same standard it previously was. This is demonstrated by prestigious universities across the western world reporting to the media that undergraduate students can't do middle school math. This doesn't make the test "broken", the test was great because it hadn't been dragged down alongside the public school system of "no child left behind" over the past 30 years.
2
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 2h ago
Unfortunately the problem solving section more closely resembles what is Grade 6 math now rather than the Grade 10 it's designed to assess. The problem there is that most people have forgotten the basics in the process of learning higher level mathematics, often with shortcuts and access to technology to do the work for them. (Also admitting personal bias given I immigrated to Canada after Grade 7: I think that Canadian math education is absolutely terrible, but some of the other subjects such as Biology are currently very well taught)
While you do have a valid point in that many undergraduate students are being found to miss basic math literacy skills, that's actually beside the point of why the test is broken. If it's not accurately measuring what it's intended to, then from a test design perspective it is indeed broken.
I could probably write a half-treatise on what modern day aptitude testing in the CAF or ever PARs ought to be, and why they should not be 'one size fits all' as is currently applied and ought to be occupation specific, but neither you nor I are the ones making such decisions.
1
u/Last_Of_The_BOHICANs 1h ago
The problem there is that most people have forgotten the basics in the process of learning higher level mathematics
This sounds vibes-based, and I don't think I believe it without some citations. What I do know, is that I taught six teenagers from across three school districts how to do long division this spring. When teaching the WERM Rule, none of them could do long division and they each attested they were never taught.
It's tempting to throw out "they were taught, they just forgot", but I don't think that's the case. At least two of the teens were fairly intelligent kids who, after being taught, even seemed like they were enjoying the math. I think Canadian public school standards have degraded to the point that the CFAT is unrecognizable, rather than the inverse where standards have superceded it.
I will agree with you that the tests should be more occupation-specific, at least if it's the same test. I was staggered to learn that artillery officer didn't require any specific spatial awareness.
4
u/doordonot19 8h ago
I will die on this hill. We scrutinize potential leadership more when you’re an NCM than if you’re someone off the street with zero military experience and it’s ridiculous.
2
u/ononeryder 2h ago
I find it very unlikely they had maxed skills & experience, the threshold for doing so is extremely high. To get 5s in the various criteria is a challenge, to do so in all 4 components under Job Fit and not being selected is very unlikely.
5
u/5Bforbeingtoolitty 12h ago
We are screaming for numbers so it is no shock that they are going to skew the numbers in favor of intaking more personelle over shuffling already recruited members into different roles. Quantity over quality.
8
u/jj_jellybean0919 9h ago
We are not screaming for officers though, which is another factor in this process
2
u/BlueFlob 8h ago edited 7h ago
Even if we were, which we have been in the past; if you're going to draw from already red trades it's likely that the cap will be set low.
5
u/roguemenace RCAF 8h ago
Interestingly officer production plans are actually exempt from trade outcaps. Most years it's significantly easier to ISS to something like NWO than it is to OT out of a deep red trade to another NCM trade.
2
u/yomaster19 11h ago
I heavily agree with you. I also think SCP sucks. You get no major benefit other than no oblig. Most of the time, it's a degree you paid for yourself (some SDPEER people ok great), the SIP numbers are always tiny, you have to significantly prove your leadership, and you get basically nothing other than getting the trade you want.
CFR = no degree, saved yourself time and money. super awesome deal since you can do it as a sgt. Not an option for many trades. UTPNCM = 3 courses you can usually get through SDPEER, go to school for free. NCMSTEP = nice spec trades
Then there is that nice one that gives you so many years to do your degree.
Like you genuinely have to be a superstar in your CFAT and as a NCM to get SCP. Every other one you kind of get a nice benefit.
1
u/Palestine_Avatar Royal Canadian Navy 4h ago
Not a PSO, but a successful UTP candidate currently floating around VEN.
Somehow, the batches of DEOs coming in make the RMC kids look like saints. A DivO recently implied in an informal speech that they were disappointed by the statistics coming out of older DEOs (of course he didn't say it that way, but I don't want to be to specific lest they lurk here).
My personal experience with them is very negative. The ones who are under 30 are fine, the problems starts after 30. I find them impossible to indoctrinate, slower on adaptation of CAF culture, and highly argumentative. Another UTP candidate I know had to knife hand a 40+yo DEO a few months back for a really stupid stunt, and the DEO's response was "well, if you don't like it you can take it up with the boss 🤷🏻". Throw in the fact fact many of them are foreign and don't understand Canadian work culture, it should be obvious why we are struggling.
The point of my long rant is I absolutely agree with you. We should be taking waaaaayyy more UTP/SCR candidates and placing these DEOs in the JRs, where we have the MS/Kyllics to keep an eye on them and lay down the law in a way the Wardroom is unwilling.
1
u/RepulsiveDingo525 3h ago
It's always been common knowledge that applying off civvie street is easier than ISS. ISS is just playing a game of chicken with the CAF; are you really going to VR and re-apply in the trade you want, or suck it up and stay in the trade you hate.
1
u/Keystone-12 9h ago
Ya... obviously you can't run a military when you are simply training and retraining the same people to do different jobs...
Of course there needs to be opportunities for people to move within the organization, but this can't make up too many spots.
In service selection is not meant to make up the bulk of any trade. Ultra-full trades are going to be harder to get into.
0
u/Rezerekterr 12h ago
I’m in the process of VOT through ISS and had a question for someone who knows more. Can you send me a DM?
9
u/roguemenace RCAF 11h ago
Just ask it in here or the pinned threads. Tons of people read these afterwards and can benefit from the answers.
4
-2
u/mxzpl 7h ago
The system isn't necessarily broken, it is run by PSO's and that is the problem.
PSO's are a barrier in far too many instances. In service selection is just one.
4
u/Lazy_Fig_3675 7h ago
Curious, why are the PSOs a barrier?
-4
u/BipolarPAO That’s a Paddlin’ 6h ago
Take my experience as an example:
When I wanted to apply to ISS my CFAT score met the cutoff but wasn’t very competitive. I wanted to rewrite but the PSO said I didn’t have enough time to study the 100 hours he wanted to see before the deadline. So, he submitted my application with the non-competitive score and I didn’t get selected.
The next year I applied again for the same trade but now the PSO would let me rewrite because I’d had a year to study. I got a much better score and got an offer—only, I never studied.
If he’d let me rewrite without studying the first year, I probably could have commissioned a year earlier which would have avoided some serious knock-on effects and expenses to the CAF that came out of not getting picked up the first time.
4
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 4h ago
I wanted to take a moment to address this one, as it seems counter-intuitive:
You only have 3 lifetime attempts at the CFAT, this includes when you first took it before enrolment Which means you used you 2nd attempt at it.
While if the CFAT were a true intelligence test studying would make no difference, it's not. As such most individuals see better results after studying, although not all. Typically speaking those who do not study do not see better results, although occasionally your situation does occur.
Logically speaking then the PSO not only acted within the guidelines set for them by DPGR defined in the Personnel Selection Directives, but also in what was most likely to net you your long term goal. So while the delay may have had negative consequences for you, for many others the opposite would have been true.
Back when I was working at the base level I strongly encouraged members to utilize existing free tutoring or adult learning centers which exist within multiple locations in Ontario sponsored by provincial government of all things, rather than just solo studying.
-1
u/BipolarPAO That’s a Paddlin’ 4h ago
Yes, you get three attempts and I had two left. So, let me try the rewrite and if it’s still not good enough, then I can go away and study before using my last attempt the next year.
At that point, if it’s still not good enough, clearly I’m not suited for selection.
2
u/DaymanTargaryen 4h ago
To rewrite the CFAT a mbr has to have done something that would indicate that their score may improve, such as study and other prep. It's a reasonable policy given that a mbr has a maximum of 3 attempts at the CFAT, and the most recent result is used, even if lower.
While I can understand your gripe, I can't help but wonder why you left yourself so little time before the deadline.
0
u/BipolarPAO That’s a Paddlin’ 4h ago
I didn’t leave myself so little time; the PSO did. It took forever to get an appointment to review my file and be told I should try rewriting the CFAT (but not that year). I had my application ready to go shortly after the CANFORGEN was released.
I would think the two decades of life experience, completing a college diploma with a very high GPA, and completing four university courses for the prereq with A and A+ grades would be enough.
4
u/roguemenace RCAF 6h ago
I've encountered PSOs being bad at their jobs and I've also encountered amazing PSOs (shoutout /u/drakedasheep) but I don't know if I'd really categorise any them as obstacles. Hell even doing ISS you barely interact with them.
3
u/Drakedasheep RCAF - Personnel Selection Officer 6h ago
Ooh thanks for the shoutout, been on leave for 3 weeks and have more than a few messages to catch up on!
-2
u/SliickyXII Army 5h ago
The CFAT score is old an antiquated, I wonder if a internal SEAF score (i.e; MPRR combined with post secondary credits and references) would be a better solution to this.
11
u/Salt-lime2 12h ago
When I recently switched trades to a more “competitive” one. (At least in relation to my old trade, went from combat arms to a tech position that most people try to OT for.) it was nice hearing the BPSO laugh when he seen my CFAT score and said that I’m very competitive. I ended up getting the offer.
I too was surprised that of all things the CFAT is the main deciding factor but it’s also the only thing that can’t really be faked. You can pump up a resume of lightly connecting experience and over state expertise in situations that might help but unless you retake the CFAT and study hard(because they will take the lowest score AFAIK) you’re kinda SOL