Reclaiming Army Standards

Very Good Op-Ed (0.00 / 0)

Much better than the first one that you wrote, "Shaping a New Army."

---

by: Colonel "Joe" USAR @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:47:37 AM CST

Heh. Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

I'll take that as a compliment!

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 13:12:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And your diary at dKos is soaring on the rec list... (0.00 / 0)

good jobs.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 13:32:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

HS diploma v GED (0.00 / 0)

Brandon, if I am reading you correctly, those without a diploma have a GED. Am I correct?

I really don't have  a problem with GEDs given the current drop out rate from our HSs. I think it is more than 50% for some populations.

In some ways I kinda admire someone who drops out and then has the balls to get the GED. Way back when, I hired someone with a GED. In the interview [woman in early 20s with very little work experience which was ancient history] I had to ask what a GED was. She explained it to me. And the work history was explained by the fact that she was married and had a daughter who had just started 1st grade. Her husband was starting to take classes at the community college which was also a new thing in our neighborhood and she wanted to start working now.

With quick math it became obvious that she had 'dropped out' to get married and have her baby and then got her GED. I, personally took this as a plus and hired her. Later, when she got a promotion and assigned to another area she asked me why I gave her 'the job' given her weak resume. I really had to say that first I just liked her and the GED seemed to me that she had goals and priorities---was so glad that she had proven me right about her.

The weight, health and criminal history seems to be a different story... But do think that waivers for 'crimes', if used with good judgment are not necessarily bad.

Damn, the whole picture of recruits really reflects what is happening in our country. Sad. Kinda makes the military the hope of last resort for too many...

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:04:34 PM CST

I have a lot of respect for them, too. (0.00 / 0)

And I had some great soldiers who had GEDs.  But I had some poor ones at the same time.  The point is, if you want a professional force, you have to set high standards and you have to maintain them.  Our national security depends on it, so the military can't simply be a charity for people who have the balls to join.  They have to be qualified.  Again, I'm not opposed to allowing in some people with GEDs.  But we need to reverse the numbers I included.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 13:16:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (0.00 / 0)

it would be interesting to have a longitudinal study done on those who fall into all three of these 'negative' categories and their success rates in the Military. The numbers in these categories are high enough to compare them to those who meet the higher standards.

Not arguing, just saying that the documentation of comparative  success rates would be interesting and could be very informative.

O/T but a 'recruiting' issue of another nature:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...

 

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 13:30:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Army using Video Game center to 'lure' recruits... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/0...

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:19:56 PM CST

Army mulls "fat farm" at Jackson: (4.00 / 1)

  I'm somewhat surprised such a thing has not been opened yet. I remember a few guys in my Basic (in 1994) who were right at the limits for Army weight standards.

 Most, as I recall, made much improvement at Basic (while scrawny guys like me put on 25 pounds), but there were a couple who just couldn't shed the weight in time to meet the standard, and went home.

 With the standards falling as staffing needs increase, the need for a fat farm should have been apparent several years ago. I'm surprised that it's taken this long to conceive of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

---

by: IrritatedVet @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 16:34:45 PM CST

Is the risk of early attrition worth the cost? (0.00 / 0)

     Army enlistment standards have been lowered in recent years out of necessity, in an attempt to grow the organization during a protracted war. While the cost of enticing applicants through increased bonuses and educational benefits can be factored into recruiting policy decisions, the consequences of lowering one or more enlistment standards for the same purpose cannot. On an aggregate basis, the actual cost of relaxed enlistment standards the Secretary of the Army will be interested in is related to early attrition among first-term enlistees who separate prior to completion of their initial service obligation.
    So in order to fill the ranks, the question is not whether to lower the standards, but at what cost.  A United States General Accounting Office (GAO) report of data from a 10-year period ending with Fiscal Year 1993 revealed that based on an average 4-year enlistment fully one third of all Department of Defense recruits failed to complete their initial obligation. The projected cost of recruiting and training those 72,670 individuals who left the service prematurely was $1.3 billion, and the report included recommendations on improvements in recruiter selection and performance evaluations, and medical, physical, and criminal screening of applicants. More recent reports from the GAO have focused primarily on the Services capacity to meet recruiting and retention goals, and have not included a more current assessment of the cost of attrition.  In acknowledging the direct relationship between lower entrance standards and early attrition however, it's obvious that at least the Army leadership is willing to take that chance and accept the cost.
    Without readily available data on attrition, trends in recruiting and retention are suitable surrogates, accepting the higher cost of both during a protracted war.  By those measures the chance the Army is taking on a small percentage of applicants appears to be paying off.  The Army has exceeded its enlisted retention goals for each of the last 10 years, and according to Pentagon officials referenced in Lizette Alvarez's article in today's New York Times, each Service component either met or exceeded its recruiting goals for FY 2008. Given that success, and a weak economy with an increasing unemployment rate, we may actually see one or more of those relaxed enlistment standards raised in the coming year.

LTC Littell, ILE Student, Class 09-001. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author, intended to fulfill the ILE student blogging requirement, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

---

by: CLittell @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:22:51 PM CST