Lowering Standards

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
...and it still isn't good enough.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1934559,00.html?xid=rss-nation-yahoo

some excerpts:

"the Pentagon has continued to lower its recruiting standards to meet the ever-increasing demand for U.S. troops. Even so, the agency recently found that 75% of Americans ages 17 to 24 are ineligible to enlist — largely because of either a lack of education, a criminal record, poor fitness or all of the above."

...

"many potential recruits still fail the Armed Forces Qualification Test (the AFQT) and cannot join. The test is used by the military to determine math and reading skills. About 30 percent of potential recruits with a high school degree take the test and fail it"

...

"Less than a month after the Pentagon celebrated meeting its annual recruiting goals for the first time since 1973, this report serves as a grim reality check."



It's really sad that the base of our population is so inept or physically incapable.

What does that say about the whole? Not even considering someone's attractiveness to the military, shouldn't people be or at least want to be something more... something worthwhile?

My brothers unit is made of nearly 50 percent moronic stench. This is supposed to be a highly trained unit. Not your garden variety soldiers. Yet, the stories of sheer stupidity that are excused because of an inability to fill the empty slot are disheartening.

The stuff he will be doing is no joke. The nitty gritty, scary crap that later can't be talked about... and he'll be accompanied by bottom-feeders?

Really? Seriously? You could find no one better suited? Apparently not :baffled:
 

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
The subject of the thread is "lowering standards"...

and where the hell else you want me to put it? start another thread with zero comments? Lame.
 

Unhappy Camper

Hells yeah
Founder
Mar 10, 2008
5,012
25
178
Fayettenam Area, NC
The subject of the thread is "lowering standards"...

and where the hell else you want me to put it? start another thread with zero comments? Lame.

The shooter @ Fort Hood was apparently a DOCTOR of Psychiatry as well as being a MAJOR.

I don't think any standards were altered for this guy.


Also ...


The US military is a great place for people that have had troubles at home or difficulty in their community. The military has a LONG history of growing Statesmen and Men and Women of great military lineage out of 17 year old shitbags.

These same 17 year olds, left in their home/community, would likely have a long criminal record or a toe tag by their 21st BDay.

Yes, at times the military adjust their standards based on their requirements, its not a new thing.


Strong NCO leadership is always on hand and is the BACKBONE of the military and the ONLY reason why the US military is the top notch force it is ... and considering we are an ALL volunteer force @ WAR that is saying a lot for the men and women of the NCO corps.
 

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
The shooter @ Fort Hood was apparently a DOCTOR of Psychiatry as well as being a MAJOR.

I don't think any standards were altered for this guy.
You missed my point, apparently.

This topic loosely correlated - and I was not keen on the idea of another thread that interests only me, so I just added it to an existing one.

Just to comment - Fort Hood has already seen a lot. Obviously, having lived in the area for quite a few years, I have ties there. It's heartbreaking to hear about this.


cranium said:
Also ... blah blah blah...
Yeah, I get that. However, I'm still entitled to my own little frustration over WHO is being shipped overseas with my brother. Cuz... I happen to care about his jerk self.

Also, my point with the OP was MORE about the general population than simply "military standards". Try reading it again, perhaps? Miss out on your preschool? That is apparently a key factor ; )

The fact that the military has to continually lower standards to meet their quotas is sad. It's very sad that 75% of people within recruitment age range are so inept or incapable that they cannot meet the basic standards for enlistment.

I restate... What does that say about 'us' - the civilians?
 

Unhappy Camper

Hells yeah
Founder
Mar 10, 2008
5,012
25
178
Fayettenam Area, NC
You missed my point, apparently.
Apparently.

Obviously.


The fact that the military has to continually lower standards to meet their quotas is sad. It's very sad that 75% of people within recruitment age range are so inept or incapable that they cannot meet the basic standards for enlistment.

I restate... What does that say about 'us' - the civilians?
The 'standard' is there is NOT a specific standard.

The military adjust its needs based on the world mission and the available civilian recruit availability.

In 'peace' times with a booming economy it was very had to meet your 'Brain surgeon" standard because there were plenty of jobs to be found in the public sector.

Generally speaking :

The military ( all branches taken into account ) have a MUCH higher education level and MUCH higher COMPETENCY level in the 21-25 year group than a cross section of the same group of civilian 21-25 year olds.

By 25 a 'typical' Troop that entered service at 18 is likely to be almost a mid-level NCO, have led or is leading from 8 to 30 people and is responsible for millions of $$ of gear ... not to mention being responsible for his team/squads LIVES. Your 'typical' civilian is no where near as capable a human being as the typical Troop because your typical civilian has NEVER been tested by anything more stressful than being stuck in 5pm traffic.



I restate :

There is no "set in stone standard". A recruiter has a prepared statement when asked what they are looking for but OFF the record its a much more different person.

Troops are grown and it takes weeding out the shitbags to get the good ones to grow to their full potential.