The purpose of this article is to provide an examination and evaluation of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) 2020 academic year. Three officers, from three different sections, evaluated virtually all aspects of the academic year.  We chose to use three perspectives to provide a more expansive insight into a year at CGSC.  Often one person’s perspective can be dismissed as anecdotal and this was our attempt to offer legitimacy to the evaluation. This evaluation includes our assessment of the day-to-day classroom instruction, administrative elements of CGSC, and garrison activities of Fort Leavenworth. Our examination does not include an evaluation of all aspects of CGSC. For example, none of us participated in the Masters of Military Arts and Sciences (MMAS) degree program, and all three of us lived on Fort Leavenworth.  Each section will show the average grade based on all three of our evaluations and then provide our assessments and comments. For our evaluation, we based the format on that of MAJ Jamie Schwandt, USAR, used for an article he wrote for the Task and Purpose in 2018. 

Administrative: B+

Billy: A-

This evaluation is mainly based upon my Staff Group Adjutant (SG ADJ), she was the difference in admin actions for our staff group.  Use your SG ADJ to your full advantage, the good ones will make miracles happen with USSD.  In-processing was incredibly easy, but USSD seemed to have their own processes at times and this was frustrating.  For example the use of Blackboard and the Student Accountability Tracking System (SATS) makes little sense.  It is seemingly insignificant, but it seems to be the center of so many complaints and conversations at CGSC it will surprise you.  

Paul: B+

The administrative process went about as well as I expected; in-processing was well planned and executed. My staff group adjutant was well-informed and helpful.  I didn’t think the PCS process was too complicated; however, I had a CONUS move and no extenuating family circumstances.

Phil: B+

The CGSC staff and student adjutants completed administrative actions quickly, in-and-out processing was smooth and efficient, and even time-consuming tasks like body composition testing and urinalysis were relatively painless. 

The only reason this isn’t an “A” is because of the bizarre method used for accountability and the difficulty in finding things on Blackboard. The online student accountability tracking system (SATS) elicits strong opinions. I understand the need to maintain the accountability of students, but SATS is used in a manner that defeats the intended purpose and doesn’t line up with our Mission Command doctrine.

Finding things on Blackboard ranges from simple to incredibly complicated. I wasted a great deal of time searching for a document, slide deck, required reading, or test only to eventually abandon hope and ask someone in our staff group chat room where it was.

Academics: B 

Billy: B-

This grade is in the middle because CGSC academics were a mixed bag of great, average, and bad. There is a lot of conflicting guidance and climate on whether this is more training or education or vice versa. The pursuit of the master’s accreditation and X100 seemed to override the whole curriculum to its detriment.  The assessments used at CGSC seemed to rarely reinforce the capability gap identified for most field grades, which are oral and written communication skills.  Grades are heavily reliant on blackboard quizzes that are open book, and this method needs updating.  A recommendation to improve assessments would be to have students do written self reflections on reading twice a week and having two students at random present their reflections.  The all-consuming X100 was a detriment to Common Core because it seemed to dictate the learning outcome of every lesson, rather than allowing faculty to assess their students and instruct how they thought could best accomplish the learning outcome.  

Paul: B  

There was a lot of griping about the amount of reading, X100, and the elusive “Master of Operational Studies.” I would say that the amount of reading is necessary to get the most out of classroom discussion.  If you manage your time well, there is no reason that you need to miss any family dinners or burn the midnight oil to prepare for class.  X100—while painful—forced students to study and retain Common Core information. 

Phil: B+

I think academics were above average at CGSC. I agree with Billy that the pursuit of master’s accreditation by the school was detrimental to some degree. It was the primary point of discussion throughout the year. I do not have a strong opinion on the value of a master’s degree from CGSC. I think it will check the box for having a master’s but will not set anyone apart from their peers.

Tactics Classes and Planning Exercises: B+

Billy: B+

The classes were not the best but they did serve as an opportunity to read and reflect on doctrine, especially with the shift to Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO).  The practical exercises were good, especially when you are in a leadership or primary staff role.  A recommendation for incoming students who are out of practice or may never have done MDMP – get back in the books prior to arriving.  Also do not be afraid to throw yourself into the fray and ask your classmates for help during these exercises.  Do not hide in the background and waste the opportunity to get better.

Paul: A

Classes had a propensity to be a bit dry.  As a maneuver officer, I knew a lot of the information; however, it was nice to get a doctrinal refresher.  During planning exercises, I was regularly assigned as an S3 or an XO, so I was lucky to get a large number of repetitions that will help me prepare for my KD role.  Additionally, my staff group was lucky enough to participate in Operation Eagle-Owl, which gave us an excellent opportunity to plan with our British allies for two weeks.

Phil: B+

I was fortunate to have great DTAC instructors. These instructors, in combination with previous assignments and the Maneuver Captain’s Career Course (MCCC), set me up for success at CGSC. I thought these classes were a good refresher and also enabled planning for large scale combat. 

The planning exercises at CGSC were very similar to the battalion phase of MCCC. I was lucky to serve in a wide range of staff positions during planning exercises. Unfortunately, some of my classmates didn’t get rotated to different positions outside of their branch. Further scenario refinement and injects from a white cell during planning exercises would help make the exercises more realistic and force critical and creative thinking. 

History Classes: A

Billy: A-

The history class topics were awesome.  The readings for history were some of the best in the course.  The topics also sparked some great conversations and provided a fantastic foundation on LSCO.  Unfortunately, X100 again rears its ugly head and takes away from learning and applying history outside of Clausewitz’s trinity and a few other “foot stomp” points.  

Paul: A+

My instructor was phenomenal; the discussions were engaging and thought-provoking.  The instructor organized the class in a manner that allowed us to cover a wide swath of information that applies to our profession’s current operational environment.

Phil:  A

My history instructor for Common Core and AOC was very competent. I also took three history electives with equally impressive instructors. The information presented through lectures, readings, and discussion was one of the highlights of the entire school year. 

Leadership Classes: B+

Billy: A

Much like history, the assigned readings were worth every minute. My instructor was incredible and really did a great job of getting the most out of our discussions. CGSC should do more instruction on ethical leadership. We continuously see failings of ethical leadership in the Army and it is surprising we think two lessons discussing ethics is good enough during PME.

Paul: A-

My staff group had a positive experience with our leadership course.  The instruction pulled the most discussion—good and bad—from our leadership blocks.  If anything, it gave me a glimpse into the psyche of some of my peers and offered fresh perspectives for how others handled difficult leadership situations.

Phil: B

Both leadership instructors I had were excellent, but some of the vignettes used during Common Core were odd choices. On several blocks of instruction, I struggled to relate the outcome for the lesson to the vignette or the discussion. During AOC, we transitioned to learning about the “Art of Command.” I think separating the AOC portion of leadership into two blocks and adding instruction on developing subordinate leaders would be more beneficial than having all of AOC dedicated to the “Art of Command.”

Force Management and Logistics Classes: B

Billy: A+

These classes were where I learned the most about “how the Army works” and how/why we get the “stuff” we do.  Again I had an incredible instructor who really had a passion for this material and he turned some of the most painful classes into a great learning experience.  This is where you will make that push for being able to do the “next-level” of staff work.  These classes can be rough, but I ultimately learned the most from them and provided the most context on how the Army runs. I do believe the quality of my staff group’s instructor had a huge impact on this portion of CGSC, reinforcing my belief that your instructor will make the difference.               

Paul: B

Force management is boring. Look, it’s hard to be passionate about Force Management. It’s got a face only an FA50 can love. I never thought I’d hate flow charts so much. However, the reality is that majors need to know how the Army runs so we can run it. It was my least favorite course but, alas, it is a necessary evil.  That said, I had a quality Logistics instructor who made it as digestible as possible.  Additionally, the logistics instruction was top-notch.  I had a lot of “ah-ha” moments because I have never been exposed to large-scale logistical operations–particularly, deploying a division.  

Phil: C+

DLRO instructors are very good at teaching logistics and sustainment, but the Force Management curriculum is challenging to teach and understand. Force management is an important subject, and it must be taught at CGSC. I learned more in these courses than in any other block of instruction, but the curriculum needs review to ensure it is meeting the intent in developing field grade leaders from all branches of services in how the Army and the DOD run.

DJIMO Classes: A-

Billy: A-

The intro to “jointness” was necessary and enlightening. Again, the only detriment to this instruction was X100, as it forced instructors to steer away from the discussion of students and to get into more specific topics rather than the deeper discussions that may impact careers in the future.

Paul: A

DJIMO instruction did a good job, making us see the “bigger picture.” The curriculum was a bit on the dry side, and you see that you’re a little fish in a big pond.  I only had one sister service officer in my staff group; however, his perspective was enlightening and value-added during our joint instruction.

Phil: B+

DJIMO classes are taught throughout Common Core and AOC. Most cover a single topic such as, CAS, Space, Cyber, and Joint Operations. Classes about the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) are longer, but for most of my staff group, it was our first exposure to JOPP, so the extra time made sense. 

The most significant improvement needed within DJIMO is the need for additional instruction on electronic warfare. I don’t think that our class has a firm understanding of the differences between cyber, EW, or information operations, and how they can help shape the fight at the operational and tactical level.

Electives B+

Billy: B+

I went into electives with most required credits completed and was given a really interesting opportunity to do a self-study looking at the CGSC curriculum.  What does that mean to you?  Do what you want to do during electives.  Some will tell you not to waste your time with history or anything not directly related to being an S3 or XO, and that is wrong.  Electives provided an opportunity to do something that you were truly passionate about and broaden in ways you think are necessary.  Since my class load was so light I was able to cruise through my own reading list that I had neglected during the rest of the academic year.

Paul: B+

COVID made our elective experience a bit different.  I had to take a few courses that I did not originally plan to take because the originals were canceled.  However, there was still a multitude of courses that were available to help me prepare for KD time.  My primary focus for course selection were courses that I thought would best help for S3/XO time.  Given the circumstances, the experience was positive.  Every instructor took the online learning environment seriously and made it as user-friendly as possible.

Phil: A

I took four electives over the two terms. Two of these courses, “Great Campaigns” and “Evolution of Military Thought” were prerequisite courses for SAMS. Both were exceptional. I also took “The Field Grade Role in MDMP” and “20th Century Urban Operations”. “The Field Grade Role in MDMP” was taught by DTAC instructors and should be the standard for how a CGSC class is taught via distance learning. It was well taught, organized, and interactive. It is a great elective to take if you want to be able to immediately contribute and lead a staff as a field grade officer. I took “20th Century Urban Operations” primarily because of the instructor. He was my history instructor for Common Core and AOC and is incredibly knowledgeable and teaches in a manner that ensures understanding.  

Faculty: A-

Billy: B+

My Staff Group faculty was an A+. When we got outside our three instructors, the experience was vastly different. Hearing stories from other people about their faculty was shocking at times. Your faculty will heavily influence the quality of your experience at CGSC and you will have to evaluate how you need to fill the holes in your education and training.  The faculty that are truly great will provide you opportunities to take care of your family and navigate the sometimes silly administrative requirements to ensure you accomplish this.

Paul: A

I’d be lying if I said my instructors made me want to stand on my desk and declare, “O Captain, My Captain!” at the end of the school day.  They weren’t always 100% prepared, and on occasion, they would express open contempt for the curriculum writers.  I get it. We’re all human.  The reason I give them an “A” is because I think they sincerely believe in the importance of their role in our professional development and the betterment of the Army and Joint force.  They were approachable and took time to answer questions that make CGSC a positive experience.

Phil: A  

Virtually every instructor I had during the year was exceptional. I know that there are poor instructors at CGSC, but I had very little exposure to them. My only criticism is that instructors at the staff group level don’t have enough input or flexibility in how the curriculum is developed and taught.

Grading: C+  

Billy: C+

Grading seemed completely arbitrary despite the use of rubrics.  Depending on the instructor, the feedback was from barely existent to really good.  This was completely dependent upon the relationship with and quality of the instructor.  Again the Blackboard quizzes were a complete waste of time and seemed to receive a lot of emphasis despite their low quality.

Paul: C+

Grading is probably my biggest gripe.  I didn’t mind the papers, presentations, or assignments that applied to our future jobs—writing running estimates and commander’s intent.  Those assignments should be expected for graduate-level work.  It was the multiple-choice, open-book, open-notes Blackboard exams that were mainly an exercise in “who can CTL-F the fastest.” They have got to go. 

Phil: B

With one or two exceptions, the grades I received reflected my understanding of the material and the quality of my work. However, grades for class participation, written assignments, and staff work during exercises were not assessed consistently or had confusing standards throughout the school year. I didn’t really mind the Blackboard exams, but I think they should primarily be closed book exams similar to the X100 and Master Tactician tests.    

Everything Else:

Physical Training (PT): B+

Billy: B+ 

There is no necessity to do organized PT at CGSC, and thankfully it was changed.  PT should be an opportunity to better yourself and demonstrate your commitment as a leader.  The gyms are adequate and if you plan your time you can get some great informal PT done with your peers multiple times a week.  Be creative and take the time to work on your overall fitness (emotional, mental, and spiritual) while at CGSC.  A max ACFT score will be great as a field-grade, but will not be the only thing you need to be successful.

Paul: A

You’re all adults.  If you can’t take responsibility to keep yourself in shape…well, maybe it’s time for a new J-O-B.  Gruber and Harney Gyms have everything you need to be successful; the new ACFT facility has everything you need to train for and conduct an ACFT, and there are plenty of quiet areas to go for a run on a cool Fort Leavenworth morning.

Phil: B+

I had no issues with either of the physical fitness policies at CGSC. Initially, there was only flexibility with the times and the program. This policy changed when LTG Rainey took command. His policy allowed small groups and sections to determine the frequency of organized PT. With both policies, I felt I was able to meet my fitness goals and was treated like an adult and future field grade officer. I never conducted Director PT with COL Green, but the feedback I got from officers in our section that attended said it was a great workout and a useful forum for discussing class issues.   

Fort Leavenworth Garrison: B+

Billy: B+

Some services on post were incredible when you requested help, and others were not so much.  Overall, the Garrison did a good job handling this year’s exceptional circumstances and supporting the Soldiers, families, and the community.  Their position was not one to be envied and they rose to the occasion. One big gripe is the availability of medical appointments and the experience varied.  There are a lot of people trying to take care of their bodies during CGSC and the system can be overwhelmed causing delays, but the medical community does their utmost to reduce the issues.

Paul: A

I loved living on post.  It is the safest community on planet earth, and it takes about 4 minutes to get to school every morning.  I certainly don’t envy anyone in a garrison position in a pandemic environment.  That said, garrison leadership did a great job keeping us informed and on track to PCS.

Phil: B

The gyms get crowded quickly during PT hours and are showing their age. The new ACFT center is impressive and is a great addition. Fort Leavenworth doesn’t offer much medical support for dependents, especially expectant mothers. Housing on the post is above average, but the homes in the older villages are smaller and have more maintenance issues. On-base schools are some of the highest-ranked in Kansas. The post library is world-class and provides a quiet place with Wi-Fi to study seven days a week. All the other garrison activities my family dealt with were above average or better. Medical care for dependents on the post is what lowered my grade significantly.

Final Thoughts

Disagreement with our evaluations and comments is expected and welcome. As graduates, our goal is to improve CGSC for future classes. The three of us had generally positive experiences but there is always room for improvement. Our hope is that this article will spur discussion between CGSC leadership, faculty, alumni, and the current class. 

Major Billy Folinusz is a recent graduate of the Command General Staff Officer’s College.  He was commissioned as an Armor officer from James Madison University in 2009. He also holds a Masters of Public Policy from Temple University.  He is currently stationed at Fort Stewart with the 3rd Infantry Division.  He is married to his wife Theresa and the proud father of Theodore.

Major Paul Scifers is an Infantry Officer who has served in Airborne and Light formations. Upon graduation, he’ll serve in the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. He can be reached on DOD webmail and on Twitter @pfs8764.

Major Philip Henke is currently attending AMSP at SAMS. MAJ Henke is a Cyber and Electronic Warfare Officer who began his commissioned service in the Infantry. He most recently served as the Cyber and Electronic Warfare Operations Officer for the 7th Special Forces Group. MAJ Henke attended Kansas State University and is currently a graduate student at Indiana University pursuing a Master’s degree in Cybersecurity. He can be reached on DOD webmail and on Twitter @PhilipHenke