Lots of discussion about the value of in-person PME that is lacking a critical variable. Since I have been looking a lot at this area with @MaggieCaroline1, @NatSecGirlSquad, and members of my CGSC class ( @gracemgeiger and others) here is some more food for thought. https://twitter.com/PatDonahoeArmy/status/1292065610294276096

When comparing in-person learning (IPL) v hybrid v online options for PME, limiting the discussion to the "intangibles" of IPL and using ancedotes from O-6+ is like comparing apples to basketballs.
Todays PME students are not the same as students from a decade+ ago.

For 1, this generation is adapted to virtual social networking. While in prev. generations, you might go to OBC with LT and not see or hear from him until you both go to CCC or CGSC years later, today's officers keep in constant contact with facebook, twitter, whatsApp etc.

Moreover, they are adapted to building and creating social networks through virtual means.
I've never "met" my CGSC classmates but we connect via a group text chain, MSTeams, twitter, etc etc daily. We were even able to celebrate the birth of a classmate's son together,

Speaking of families, this classmate would have had to not attend this CGSC class if it weren't hybrid since he would have either had to be TDY away from his family for the birth of his son or drop the course because he would have missed too many instructional hours to be there

A Center for Economic Studies report looked at the rise of dual-income families across the United States and saw that from 1960 to 2000, the number of dual-income families more than doubled to over 60%... and growing.

https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2019/CES-WP-19-19.pdf

Military spouses outstrip every other demographic group for un- and under-employment. One of the chief culprits? PCSs. In a typical military officer's career, resident PME courses account for 50% or more of their PCSs.

https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Military%20Spouses%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf

Every one of these PCSs typically produces (on average) 4-6 months of unemployment for the milspouse. But the lost income is more than just 4-6 of wages. It's typically 4x that figure https://www.forbes.com/sites/financialfinesse/2019/01/14/thinking-about-a-career-break-heres-why-you-should-consider-flexwork-instead/#7f95a7e52ace

Take resident CGSC for example: The Leavenworth area is not a metropolis with infinite jobs, therefore many milspouses are un- or under-employed for that year. Thats a huge penalty!

For math's sake, let's assume that the milspouse is a career person making $100k a year, but because of CGSC, she has to take a year off because employment simply isn't available.
That Army Family loses an average of $400k in lifetime earnings!

Long-term (6 months or more) unemployment is particularly harmful to children. Besides changing schools and friend-groups (both harmful), parental unemployment is correlated to poorer academic performance and health in children.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/23921/412887-Consequences-of-Long-Term-Unemployment.PDF

In the age of virtual social networking, the BBQs in officer housing at Leavenworth simply cannot justify that kind of impact on the family.
This kind of impact HURTS the Army.

It forces families to leave the Army, as 81% of milspouses surveyed by Hire Our Heroes say they have discussed with their SM.
This means we lose talent because the Army does not consider the well-being of their spouse adequetely

With a new retirement structure, it wouldn't be surprising to find that high performing officers with career-working spouses leave instead of attending CGSC because they are very marketable at 30 (with a vested GI Bill), and can take some retirement savings with them.

@JimRainey10 emplores #miltwitter to do more than point out problems, so sir, as the Army looks to the future of PME, I hope we:
-Expand the # of satellite campuses so PCS in/out within a year are the exception rather than the norm
-Hybrid virtual/live electives are expanded

This would also save the Army money because while there are fixed costs associated with building new facilities for satelite classrooms, the money saved by not PCSing as many officers would offset these costs over time.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672346.pdf

And the Army would be able to retain talent because we demonstrate that the sacrifices we ask of our Army Families are directly-related to Nat'l Security (deployments, field training etc) not our own admin proclivities (classroom-based schooling PCS)

This would also allow flexibility by allowing IPL as widely as possible even in times of higher risk because students would not act as vectors for disease, bringing infection from one base to another.

And the local senior commander could ensure that the services that enable student learning (like daycare for the kids of their students) were mutually supporting.

No more situations where a student is required in-person by one commander at a TDY post, but their working-spouse and kids are at the permanent station where daycares are closed.

Hard to focus on learning when your family isn't taken care of.

There are exceptions. Courses like BOLC where field-training is essential, it makes more sense to have a central location. But the Army can, and needs to, do more to keep faith with the Army Family Covenant and enable families to thrive while serving the nation.