CLC3 Day 64: Ammo & maintenance

Today was pretty simple: we went over ammunition blocks of instruction in the morning and went over the maintenance test in the afternoon.

I was pretty frustrated with the maintenance test -- granted, I missed some blocks of instruction because of the levy brief last week, but I was really diligent about looking things up in the sources. I thought I'd have done better, but I only got an 84. Thumbs down.

I admit this is a "sour grapes" complaint, but the past few blocks (quartermaster, maintenance, and ammunition) have been really terrible. After a good bit of discussion, I've come up with some reasons why:

1. The instructors do not create the slides. Instead, they fell in on a system that was already in place -- they don't choose what to present. They just "facilitate" the learning process. This leads to a superficial understanding of the material without a true understanding of what's important.


2. The instructors do not create the tests. They, too, are generated by someone else. And while the instructors look at the tests beforehand and we always give feedback on the tests, the same tests get passed down class after class. It's only when a test's answers are leaked that they're rewritten.


3. The instructors have not been trained outside their own functional areas. In prior classes, there were functional and multifunctional phases, and designated instructors for each phase. However, starting our class there is no longer any functional phase. Unfortunately, the functional instructors haven't gotten any new training on the areas outside their expertise. They're learning these areas even as they're teaching them.


4. The slides are divorced from the regulation. This problem is less systemic and more about the content. When it comes to things you need to know, the focus is on the facade, not the foundation, so to speak.  As long as you're there for the reivew and you know how to do the Ctrl+F search function, you'll pass every test. This is too bad, because it emphasizes a short-term learning rather than a long-term understanding.


5. Learning objectives are set by the three branch commandants, not an independent coordinator. And since each commandant (or rather, his staff) is more concerned with their own prerogratives than the professionalism of the logisticians, the learning objectives are short sighted. Most of us are more intetested in what we'll need to know for our next duty stations, not on othing about additional duties.
   


6. Emphasis is on academic knowledge, not practical job skills. One would think a Logistics officer would be well-versed in all deployment matters, such as Hazardous Materials certification, Unit Movement, and Petroleum/Water operations, but this isn't the case.  Strangely, we spend six months here, but we don't have time to comprehensively cover any of these things.

I understand there are changes in the making, but for now I feel frustrated at sitting in a classroom and watching slides go by without really learning anything.