Jump to content
Spaceballs

New SOS in-correspondence

Recommended Posts

Has anyone finished the new SOS i-c? Everyone in my unit finished the old easy version years ago or hasn't even looked into starting it. How quickly can you finish it if you put a lot of focus on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a push in leadership to not allow SOS in correspondence until you've hit your 7th year and haven't been in-res.

I don't foresee this happening with any urgency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a push in leadership to not allow SOS in correspondence until you've hit your 7th year and haven't been in-res.

 

I don't foresee this happening with any urgency.

The SOS commandant was very clear that that is the direction correspondence was supposed to be going. But that was 2.5 years ago...some things never change

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting nasty-grams for not finishing the first module (4-months in). The extra 6 months is very helpful in my situation. Thankfully, it looks like my year-group, 09, is lagging in getting it done overall.

I'm still getting the "get it done now" looks from the O6's. But everyone else seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach.

For overall content, seems interesting so far. Nothing too out there.. mostly a time sink. As with a online-Masters, you'll get out of it what you put into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 2nd and 3rd courses, the self-review questions were really helpful. I would suggest that you go through those questions, hit refresh, and do it again. Over and over until it seems like you've seen every self-review question in the test bank.

Then on test day at the education center, the test questions might look awfully familiar.... even if you didn't do any of the linked readings (just did the html files and the self-review questions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Sq CC told me to go sign up for correspondence SOS the day I get my line number for O3-apparently in his mind getting it done before I pin on is strat worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Sq CC told me to go sign up for correspondence SOS the day I get my line number for O3-apparently in his mind getting it done before I pin on is strat worthy.

Hate to say it, but PME is low hanging fruit. He may be trying to help you ensure you don't get the rug pulled out from under you when all of a sudden it becomes a "requirement" to get BVR SOS done in order to go in-res, or, even more likely, *when* you completed it starts to become just as much, if not more, of a discriminator than actually finishing it.

Edited by Champ Kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...when all of a sudden it becomes a "requirement" to get BVR SOS done in order to go in-res...

Is this not already the case where you are? In the 1st and 27th SOW it seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is currently a req but there's been a lot of chatter about it becoming either/or, especially given TDY budget constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

Any time line on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time line on this?

I've heard early in the new year, but it seems like everything is taking longer than planned. This is long overdue and should have been done years ago.

So would that apply to those of us who have already done correspondence and are still awaiting residence?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not sure, haven't seen the actual proposed policy, but I think the intent is to send everyone to residence and minimize the double tap. I would expect it to not apply to you as they would send you in-residence regardless of whether you have done correspondence or not.

Edited by Liquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

No shit? That is great news. And as you (later) said, long overdue.

Evolution, not revolution, fellas.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

Whoa, guys. Better get on the ball and knock it out before they say you aren't eligible to do it. Wouldn't want to get caught up in a RIF board without your PME done...

/sarcasm (but seriously, I know some of you hard-chargin' asshats were thinking it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

This is great news, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm cautiously optimistic. Why can't the new policy apply for all PDE? If it's good enough to remove the phantom requirement for SOS-C, it's good enough for all PDE. For the love of French titties, please get rid of practice bleeding! It creates hollow strats and bullets that are currently holding weight at many/most/all bases (e.g. Capt Obvious finished SOS-C prior to pin on....my 1/69 douche nozzles!). Bravo for the fact this is being seriously considered, but it needs to be accomplished across all PDE levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

If SOS in-residence attendance is 100%. The SOS correspondence course is of no value and merely drains resources we cannot afford.

This is great news, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm cautiously optimistic. Why can't the new policy apply for all PDE? If it's good enough to remove the phantom requirement for SOS-C, it's good enough for all PDE. For the love of French titties, please get rid of practice bleeding! It creates hollow strats and bullets that are currently holding weight at many/most/all bases (e.g. Capt Obvious finished SOS-C prior to pin on....my 1/69 douche nozzles!). Bravo for the fact this is being seriously considered, but it needs to be accomplished across all PDE levels.

For any PME courses when attendance cannot be 100%, I would offer the following:

The correspondence versions of ACSC and AWC are almost as old as the independent Air Force itself (1948 and 1949, respectively). We have gone through this “practice bleeding” conversation before, at one point people even believed it was going to change. It didn’t. It may this time, but the best we should hope for is that the game of “whack-a-mole” doesn’t produce a more undesirable outcome.

Despite Air Force policy stating (AFI 36-2301 did at some point, I have no idea if it still does), “ideally, all officers will attend PME in residence.”, yet only the “top 20 percent” of officers promoted to the rank of major are designated as “DE selects”. For the “candidates” left out, the opportunities to get an in-residence slot are dismal, meaning that for the vast majority of active FIELD GRADE officers, correspondence is the only PME they will ever see. While these “candidates” are not your “golden boys”, many of them are tomorrow’s leaders. Current events (i.e. RIF, VSP, and Pensions) will only drive this closer to the mathematically defined disparity...imagine we are talking about upwards of 80% of your “leaders” running around.

I think it’s a mistake to tell a “candidate” FGO that completing PME via correspondence shouldn’t be done until later (when all hope of in-residence attendance is gone…news flash it already is). You see, the problem is you’re creating reactionary policy that does not address the real issue. If “we” choose not to change the system, then I believe we are providing the supposedly “enhanced” education to the wrong group. The “top 20 percent” are the ones that should strive via self paced study, where the group just below them requires the more hand-on approach to “fill in the gaps” in leadership competency.

Speaking of competencies, Air Force doctrine would have you believe, “Competencies are attributes an individual possesses to successfully and consistently perform a given task, under specified conditions, or meeting a defined standard of performance.” Yet nowhere in the Air University’s guidance or CJCSI 1800.01 (Officer PME Policy) is there a concept of “proficiency advancement”, where officers that already possess the ability to meet the intended objectives can be moved along to make room for those that need developmental education in order to “enable [them] to perform their jobs and contribute to the overall success of the Air Force.” Admittedly, the current PME construct pre-dates these definitions within Air Force doctrine; however, I struggle to determine what senior leaders are for if not to adjust out of date practices to current and evolving doctrine.

I am not a fan of “practice bleeding” and we should change it. However, the idea that you will eliminate this via a single policy is difficult to believe. When the Air Force unmasked possession of a master’s degree for the O-4 promotion board, all of a sudden ACSC popped up with the option to earn a master’s degree. When the AAD has been mask to the O-4 promotion board (despite being told not too), SR began using AAD completion to determine DR allocation for they’re quotas. A single policy is insufficient to produce institutional change. We must address the entire construct of PME to do anything productive here, not simply admit to EVERYONE (including the enlisted force) that the FGO doesn’t really need what we are offering them in order to do their jobs.

The evidence of developmental educations efficacy remains with an officer performance after graduation. “Those officers who access education to fill their developmental needs would be expected to outperform similar officers who do not, in the same way that an MBA does not guarantee success, it is how the graduate applies the MBA that ultimately matters.” If there is no need for an FGO to complete PME as soon as possible, then there is no need for an FGO to complete PME at all.

Bendy

Edited by Bender
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice bleeding should end at all levels of PME. IDE should change so that AAD is masked at the major board, if you are not a select you are eligible to start the correspondance course, selects go in residence, both are masters degree programs. The first half of correspondance earns you IDE credit, the second year gets you the degree, AAD is unmasked at your 0-5 board. Either way, guys are de-incentivized from working on an AAD at an inappropriate time in their career, and given time to complete it for when it actually starts to matter. Plus it gives the AF a bit of control of the type of masters guys get, the bright and shinny types can appy for all types of gucci degrees/programs at the in-residence level, your average types will be handed a correspondance degree producing program that gives them a multi-year flexibility to make O-5, because let's face it, we aren't gonna be below the zone guys anyway.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to take my first test, I saw earlier in the thread if you focus on the reflection questions and the self assessment test questions, you should be good to go. Does this still check?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Squadron officer school is changing – we’re shrinking the course," Welsh said. "There’s going to be a 100 percent opportunity for active officers to go. Don’t take it by correspondence. If you get within a year of the major’s board and you’ve been operationally deferred, go take it then. We’re going to give you a chance to go.

Thats good enough for me. They are also going to get rid of IDE/SDE by correspondence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Squadron officer school is changing – we’re shrinking the course," Welsh said. "There’s going to be a 100 percent opportunity for active officers to go. Don’t take it by correspondence. If you get within a year of the major’s board and you’ve been operationally deferred, go take it then. We’re going to give you a chance to go.

Thats good enough for me. They are also going to get rid of IDE/SDE by correspondence.

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×