The School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) is at the same time well noted for and bound by its reputation. Enter most Army division or above headquarters and ask where you can find the "SAMS" officers and the answer you will get is "in the plans shop." This is because if you ask most Army officers, not associated with the school in any way, they will tell you that SAMS is the planning school, and SAMS graduates are planners. It is this commonly held belief that typifies the field Army's expectations of the school, expectations that should guide the school in its mission and curriculum. However, is there a difference between what the Army in the field expects a SAMS Advanced Military Studies Program (AMSP) graduate to be capable of when they complete the program and what SAMS actually educates that officer to do? This is the primary question answered in this monograph. The expectations of the Army come in the form of results of a survey, conducted by the school in 2007, of sitting Army flag officers in Divisions and Corps. The data indicates the leaders of the Army in the field expect what the school has traditionally produced and has gained a renowned reputation for: critical and creative thinking, problem solving planners and staff officers. These expectations have been shaped primarily by the performance of graduates of the Advanced Military Studies Program, (AMSP), and also by its 25 year history. Of course the school and its graduates know they are much more than planners for the Army. Many graduates go on to successfully command at many echelons and the school touts 55 sitting flag officers as graduates of one of its two programs, with many more in the retired ranks. Changes at SAMS in the AMSP program in 2007-2008 do not match with the field Army's expectations. The mission statement of the school removed educating staff officers as a focus and was elevated from the tactical and operational level of war, to the strategic level. A subsequent curriculum redesign resulted in one that centers on strategy and policy at the operational to strategic level. While this curriculum has not been fully implemented, it logically follows that it will provide an education that does not meet the Army's expectations for the AMSP, and is ill suited for the professional military education of junior field grade officers. One reason the redesign resulted in a mismatched curriculum is the school did not follow the curriculum design policies and standards of the Command and General Staff College. These policies incorporate proven theories and standards of graduate and professional military education. More importantly, they ensure continued academic accreditation of CGSC's programs by both graduate and military education accreditation agencies, including SAMS and its two programs.

Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)