From "Problem-Solvers" to "Problem-Setters": Army Engineering University Forges Cadets' Ability to Organize Training and Conduct Instruction

Once "Solving Problems" at the Front — Now "Setting Problems" Behind the Scenes: An Account of Army Engineering University's Efforts to Forge Cadets' Ability to Organize Training and Conduct Instruction

■ Wang Zi, Qiao Qiao

Midsummer in Jinling, waves of heat rolling in. On the training grounds of Army Engineering University, a "Starting Point Cup" combat team challenge competition is in full swing. Thirty-one competing teams from six military and civilian universities complete seven combat-realistic events in succession over five hours, the scene thick with tension.

"For this competition, we handed all event-organization duties entirely over to the cadets," explained Luo Wenxin, an instructor in the university's Military Fundamentals Department. From start-line registration and event officiating to score tallying and logistics resupply, from event design and rule-setting to on-site coordination and emergency response — all of it was led and executed by cadets. Instructors were responsible only for guidance on key technical points; they did not intervene in the progression of the competition or involve themselves in handling unexpected situations throughout.

Cadets shifting from "problem-solvers" competing at the front to "problem-setters" coordinating behind the scenes reflects a profound transformation in the Party committee's philosophy of cultivating talent at this university.

In recent years, the university has firmly established a talent-cultivation philosophy of "learning as the center, capability as the foundation" (学为中心、能力为本). Relying on four major categories of cadet clubs — including competition and science and technology clubs — it has built a platform for independent learning and practice, given cadets free rein to step up to the front lines of organizing training, and developed self-run competition brands such as "Starting Point," "Standard-Bearer," and "Knapsack," extending the forging of training-organization capability from the classroom lectern to the competition arena. The "Starting Point Cup" combat team challenge is one of the most representative of these competitions.

"In the past, when we focused on teaching, we cared more about how fast cadets could run and how accurately they could shoot. But for grassroots commanders, the fundamental capabilities are organizing training, conducting instruction, and exercising overall command," Luo Wenxin explained. Reviewing feedback from graduates of recent years, they found that many cadets who had been outstanding training performers while at school lacked experience in organizing training and conducting instruction after arriving at their units. "In the previous curriculum, content on organizing training mostly remained at the theoretical level, leaving cadets without hands-on experience. Now, by encouraging cadets to independently run competitions, we aim to help them address this capability gap at the source," Luo Wenxin said.

Yu Wenxu, the cadet who led the planning of this competition, felt this deeply. In the two months before the event, he led a planning team of more than twenty people, plunging into the training grounds to repeatedly rehearse procedures and refine details — from the pacing and sequencing of the competition schedule down to the placement of signage. Every single link was held to strict standards.

"When you're a competitor, crossing the finish line means the mission is complete. When you're running the competition, you have to keep your eyes on every team and every station. The challenge and pressure are easy to imagine," Yu Wenxu said. The shift from individual-combatant thinking to an awareness of overall coordination — the training and growth that this role change brings — is something theoretical instruction cannot replace.

On one occasion, team members disagreed over the judging criteria for the "Priority Crisis" event: some argued for preset standard answers to make judging efficient and consistent; others insisted that "the battlefield has no standard answers" and that judging should focus primarily on the decision-making logic of the commander. After multiple on-site rehearsals and rigorous deliberation, they ultimately settled on a judging standard of "emphasizing logic."

"The process of debate was itself a form of tempering — it made us think through why we were testing what we were testing and how to train for it," Yu Wenxu said. Many competing team members, watching their fellow soldiers organize the competition with scientific rigor and precision, broke out of the habitual mindset of "focusing only on individual scores" and began proactively studying methods of organizing training and learning from the experience of running competitions.