The Right Kind of Advanced Civil
Schooling
for FAOs . . . (June 1997)
Joseph D. Tullbane,
President and Member, Board of Governors
Robert J. Olson, Member, Board of Governors
It is in the army's interest to create a highly trained Foreign Area Officer. If we
have assessed properly the officers entering the FAO program, then we already have
the "soldier" in the "Soldier-Statesman." What we must do is train the "statesman." The
most important phase of that training is Advanced Civilian Schooling. To allow the
trainee total freedom in selecting the institution where he/she is to receive his/her
graduate degree or unlimited latitude in curriculum choice is foolhardy. However, to
choose the appropriate graduate school for FAOs is a challenge, not only for the
applicant but also for those of us who are mentors to the incoming FAOs. A related
debate centers on an argument between sending officers to prestigious schools or to
graduate degrees at the lowest cost to the Army. Frankly, this entire debate misses the
point!
Those officers who have graduated with honors and are top rated professionally
should be encouraged to apply for admission to the nation's most prestigious
universities, but only if those universities have degree programs appropriate to the field.
The value of such a degree is not to be underestimated. Experience has shown that
officers who have graduated from top flight institutions have often been selected later
to occupy the army's most distinguished positions. We want to have FAOs among
them.
In 1995, the Army increased the assessment of officers into the FAO program
(we enthusiastically concur because this gives a better/highes quality pool of officer
candidates from which to draw trainees). However, why was there no corresponding
increase in Advanced Civil Schooling? The record shows, in fact, that the number of
ACS starts decreased. For this academic year, 1998, the FAO proponent attempted to
get PERSCOM to increase the number of ACS starts. However, there are 19 FAO
trainees who had to have their Advanced Civil Schooling deferred because of lack of
funds. We understand the decision to limit the number of candidates attending high
cost schools, but we are concerned that in the eagerness to be good stewards of the
available money, students are being allowed to attend schools that offer inadequate or
inappropriate programs. The choice is now to secure more money for ACS or to
drastically limit the amount available per student and the number of graduate school
starts per year.
In looking at the FAO home page on the Internet and the graduate school list
maintained at PERSCOM, I am amazed by the number of universities listed under each
FAO regional area of concentration. Some of the listed schools do not even have
regional or international relations curricula. Previous staff studies on ACS in the FAO
program reached the conclusion that only a small number of schools offering the most
prestigious programs were acceptable for advanced degrees in our field. Even though
money may have become a most critical factor, we cannot sacrifice the quality of the
program. No one would even consider sending an ORSA to a history graduate
program or a public affairs officer to an engineering curriculum. Similarly, it is a terrible
waste of limited Army money to send a FAO to any course other than in his/her regional
specialty. The Army list of schools must be scrubbed so that only the best ranking
schools in each area of concentration remain.
The bottom line is that the match between student and school must be right.
The Army must encourage those qualified officers to attend highly prestigious
institutions and to ensure that all officers attend institutions that the proponent
endorses as offering the best area studies' programs available.
1997, Foreign Area Officer Association
Springfield, Virginia
Maintained by LTC Steve
Gotowicki.
http://www.faoa.org