PDA

View Full Version : Dumb and Dumber? Or Condescending and Misguided?



Schmedlap
01-27-2008, 09:26 PM
Here are the opening paragraphs from an article published at Slate.com by Fred Kaplan, titled, "Dumb and Dumber: The Army Lowers Recruitment Standards... Again"


The Army is lowering recruitment standards to levels not seen in at least two decades, and the implications are severe—not only for the future of the Army, but also for the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.)

The percentage of what the Army calls "high-quality" recruits—those who have high-school diplomas and who score in the upper 50th percentile on the Armed Forces' aptitude tests—has declined from 56.2 percent in 2005 to 44.6 percent in 2007.

In order to meet recruitment targets, the Army has even had to scour the bottom of the barrel.

The full article is here: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2182752

Kaplan refers to the so-called "low-quality" recruits as "dumb" and "downtrodden" and if you read above, you see the reference to scouring the "bottom of the barrel."

Maybe I am just reacting emotionally, but this entire article just really rubbed me the wrong way. In particular, this quote: "The war keeps more good soldiers from enlisting. The lack of good candidates compels the Army to recruit more bad candidates. The swelling ranks of ill-suited soldiers make it harder to fight these kinds of wars effectively."

I understand that he has a bunch of data that reflect lower aptitude test scores among new recruits. I do not see how this necessarily translates into Soldiers who are no good, bad, or ill-suited. It means they have lower aptitude test scores. Granted, he cites examples of some experiments, but anyone with more than a year or so in the Army can recognize the foolishness of those experiments.

My impression of the article is that it is ignorant, condescending, and misguided, but again maybe I'm just reacting emotionally to the suggestion that Soldiers are somehow lesser humans than the people whom they defend.

Any thoughts on Kaplan's article from the gallery?

Rob Thornton
01-27-2008, 10:35 PM
I think he's just looking for filler.


So, we're facing two choices. Either we change the way we recruit soldiers (and, by the way, cash bonuses are already about as bountiful as they're going to get), or we change the way we conduct foreign policy—that is, we engage more actively in diplomacy or, if war is unavoidable, we form genuine coalitions to help fight it. Otherwise, unless our most dire and direct interests are at stake, we should forget about fighting at all.

I don't think the choice is heads or tails - or rather it can't be. You can try and do the latter - but there are no guarantees - for a number of reasons. You can try and change the former, but at the end of the day with a professional army, you still get what you get (which imho ain't so bad) - if you go to a draft, or partial draft, you change a number of other things (some of which you probably will not figure out until its to late to prevent) - Coming in in 85, I've only been around long enough to have heard the stories by those who were in the the draft Army, and by that alone I would prefer the one we have.

There are advantages to coalition warfare, but unless your partners see it the same as you, there are disadvantages and risks as well. If its our most dire and direct interests - that does not leave much room for anything but stopping the Huns on the beach (unless they infiltrate from Canada- Marc we're watching you guys:D)

I think the best we can hope for from the FP makers is to go in "eyes wide open" with regard to the potential outcomes, and the role fog, friction and chance play; but even that might be a stretch


Petraeus and officers who think like him are right: We're probably not going to be fighting on the ground, toe-to-toe and tank-to-tank, with the Russian, Chinese, or North Korean armies in the foreseeable future. Yet if the trends continue, our Army might be getting less and less skilled at the "small wars" we're more likely to fight.

I was unaware that GEN Petraeus had been quoted as saying such – in fact I remember just recently he had been accurately quoted by our SWC member from Wired Magazine as saying something to the effect that some folks have to be killed the old fashioned way - and I would argue that there are occasions where its going to be toe-to-toe - and if not tank to tank - then I prefer tank to RPG - what is the old saying - "never bring a knife to a gun fight".

I'm with Schmedlap - I think our folks are doing pretty good - whatever their entry level qualifications may have been, they seem to be working out pretty good in the field. Now I do think we can do some more work in the other areas of DOTLMPF to help us win wars - be they small or big - or the missions that come our way in Full Spectrum Operations.

With regard to the personnel side - one thing that might help is greater emphasis by parents, communities and elected leaders to undertake uniformed service - but I would not count on it.

Unpopular Wars are going to happen - any war where our friends, daughters, sons, brothers, fathers go off and die is not going to be popular. Few cultures have ever accepted the sacrifice of their treasure readily - even when they believed the cause was righteous and war was something they knew well - Ex. 120 of the 292 Spartan hoplites Athens took prisoner on Spacteria - about 120 were Spartiates - what we might consider Spartan nobility - but certainly core, pure bloods Lacedaimonians - it changed the political reality mighty quick - the Spartans had a hard time considering their loss in those terms (it might have been different if they'd died in battle) - and they were an oligharcy.

The effect that a prolonged conflict has on a democracy is well known - what is not so well accepted is that while you might enter into war with one outcome in mind, it might not be what happens – in fact it might be radically different then you anticipated. There were an awful lot of Athenians keen to invade a fellow democracy - Sicily - during the Peloponnessian War, even when Nicias told them that Sicily was formidable and would be a hard fight - the Athenians elected to expend more resources - when it was all over, there was a good deal of finger pointing - the people who were eager for war had no real understanding of the possible outcomes, or were unwilling to contemplate them – and in time with a few more bad decisions, so went the Athenian Empire. – as Ken would say - pity.

Kagan's article makes it sound all black and white when there is mostly grey.

Best, Rob

Ken White
01-27-2008, 10:37 PM
with a lot of Cat IVs -- and the intake today is not anywhere near that.

Not to mention that in this day and age when seven year olds get tossed from school for having fingernail clippers, I'm always surprised when I find a kid who hasn't been in some sort of trouble... :wry:

Kaplan, is IMO, a hack and rarely knows of what he speaks. A lot of 'military commenters' and so-called experts in the media are closet armed forces haters and that fact does tend to sneak out in condescending prose.

I seldom read them unless someone links to them. That's good, it reminds me why I don't read them... ;)

Presley Cannady
01-28-2008, 12:44 PM
I understand that he has a bunch of data that reflect lower aptitude test scores among new recruits.

His data is from 1986 and 1992, and lo and behold two studies discovered that in areas where good grasp of maths are required, a good AFQT score correlates well with success. Mind you, this was two decades ago with the fire control systems available to 7th Army Training Command at the time and with early 1990s radios. My guess is that the Army isn't hurting for tankers and signalmen that scored Cat IIIA and above.

Oh, here's the lit review Fred jumped on.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR193.pdf

William F. Owen
01-28-2008, 01:22 PM
I've never understood the need for academic qualifications for volunteer military service. If you are dumb, you'll fail infantry training, because you won't be able to map read, or assemble and tune an IP digital radio. If you can't read and write you can't complete the application form!!

Qualification should be the ability to pass a tough and relevant training. Not do well at school.

Personally I don't trust Graduate officers to sit the right way round on a lavatory!

LawVol
01-28-2008, 02:08 PM
I would think that desire is a more valuable commodity that academic prowness when it comes to recruiting those that would fight our wars. Sure, some sense of intellect is needed, but desire is much more important. If lowering the academic standards somewhat gives us a better chance at recruiting people who actually want to serve (and you have to think that those coming in now aren't doing it just for the college money!), then I'm all for it. One caveat however, leadership must recognize the difference in the initial product we're getting and make the necessary adjustments to account for it.

BTW, alot of these folks like Kaplan think we're all dumb anyway. Didn't John Kerry put forth the idea that we're all here because we had no viable options elsewhere? I still know people that think I was an idiot to trade a law firm suit and tie for AF cammies. Some will never understand. Yes, I'll take desire over academic prowness any day. Our internal education system, combined with effective leadership, can cure the initial academic issues but desire/heart is much more difficult to instill.

selil
01-28-2008, 02:29 PM
I've never understood the need for academic qualifications for volunteer military service. If you are dumb, you'll fail infantry training, because you won't be able to map read, or assemble and tune an IP digital radio. If you can't read and write you can't complete the application form!!

Qualification should be the ability to pass a tough and relevant training. Not do well at school.

Personally I don't trust Graduate officers to sit the right way round on a lavatory!

My understanding of the reasons of academic achievement for enlistment being set at high school or above was a few;

It kept the kids in high school from escaping as enlistment emancipates a minor in the United States (not a minimal thing at all);

The academic achievement created an artificial wall to scale before admission to the military and restricted the pool of applicants (we haven't always wanted a big Army);

The minimal level of training required to succeed in basic training (not infantry mind you) was set at a high school graduate education (7th grade reading level, 8th grade math level - which would be United States averages required for reading a news paper, though it might be 6th grade for math I can't remember off the top of my head).

Of course the people at FCS keep saying that the enlistee is going to need a lot more education up front to even use the new systems effectively. That tells me they are designing them wrong, but that is another discussion. If we continue to require highly legal argumentative ROE, logic/selective tactical responses, critical thinking in high stress, and so much more then the level of education and type of education for enlistment is going to have to change. All of the new requirements appear to be in the philosophical range when a United States public education is a highly industrialized/factory worker education.

People complain about the education system all the time but it is often a disconnect between expectations and actual implementation of the education.

Ski
01-28-2008, 03:23 PM
Selil hits the nail on the head.

The complexity of digital technology, which now stretches from the individual grunt through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a major factor on how important education really is to modern military service. It's not just operations, but also maintenance. I'm sure a few of the Stryker bubbas here will chime in, but I believe there were literally hundreds of GD contractors co-located with the SBCT's at all their locations, as well as in Iraq. Please confirm or tell me I'm talking out my fourth point of contact (won't be the first nor last time).

This becomes a lot more critical when you look at the Navy and Air Force, who have built a force designed around immensely complex gadgetry called planes and ships.

Selil's points about critical thinking and decision making under stress is another excellent point. With a 24 hour news cycle that isn't going away, it's critical to have as many smart soldiers as possible - I'd submit that the next Abu Gharib isn't as far away as we'd all like it to be because of the declining education standards.

The quality of American elementary and secondary schooling also needs to be looked at as a factor in providing quality recruits to the force. How can one quanitfy the differences in education between the curriculum taught in a high school in rural Mississippi, and the curriculum in a private high school on the Main Line in Philadelphia?

The education standards are there for very valid reasons - to ensure a quality force. Add in the complexity of modern equipment, with the all seeing eye of the 24 hour news media, and the shoddy schooling in certain parts of the country where military service is still held in high regard, well, I think there is a real and valid concern.

Schmedlap
01-28-2008, 05:16 PM
The complexity of digital technology, which now stretches from the individual grunt through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a major factor on how important education really is to modern military service. It's not just operations, but also maintenance... This becomes a lot more critical when you look at the Navy and Air Force, who have built a force designed around immensely complex gadgetry called planes and ships... Selil's points about critical thinking and decision making under stress is another excellent point. With a 24 hour news cycle that isn't going away, it's critical to have as many smart soldiers as possible - I'd submit that the next Abu Gharib isn't as far away as we'd all like it to be because of the declining education standards.

In regard to technology, I think that this nintendo generation (or is it Xbox now?) is able to catch on to the warfare by video game trend, whether it be flying a UAV, manipulating the joysticks in their Bradley/Stryker/etc, or toying with all of that stuff on the JOC floor and in the SCIF that I know nothing about, in spite of my graduate education. You may be right about the maintenance aspect.

In regard to the next Abu Ghraib, I do not associate moral behavior with education. In fact, living now adjacent to a college campus after living adjacent to a military installation, I think that if there is any correllation, then it is likely between lesser education and greater morality (though not a causal relationship - there is some third factor at play, I believe).

Presley Cannady
01-28-2008, 05:26 PM
BTW, alot of these folks like Kaplan think we're all dumb anyway. Didn't John Kerry put forth the idea that we're all here because we had no viable options elsewhere? I still know people that think I was an idiot to trade a law firm suit and tie for AF cammies. Some will never understand. Yes, I'll take desire over academic prowness any day. Our internal education system, combined with effective leadership, can cure the initial academic issues but desire/heart is much more difficult to instill.

This touches on an area of research that's near and dear to me, the state of votech, science and engineering education in the United States. It amazes me with a two decade decline junior college and technology institute attendance that there can be so much contempt for what may be the largest (by enrollment) technical education program in the US.

Old Eagle
01-28-2008, 05:32 PM
HS -- One of the reasons for setting HS grad as a milestone was because some social scientists (like social diseases?) figured out that completing ANYTHING successfully (e.g. HS) was an indicator of the ability to complete other things successfully (e.g. basic, airborne, ranger, etc.)

High tech -- There is a huge difference between complex and complicated. When I took engineering courses, the mathematical assistance tool was the slide rule -- it was complicated. Then we transitioned to a much more complex tool -- the calculator. We were able to get more accurate answers in a fraction of the time, with minimal training on how to push the buttons. I won't even begin my tirade on teaching manual transmission use to the modern urban youth!

CR6
01-28-2008, 05:43 PM
HS -- completing ANYTHING successfully (e.g. HS) was an indicator of the ability to complete other things successfully (e.g. basic, airborne, ranger, etc.)



When I was a recruiting company commander this point was repeatedly hammered home by the Program Analysis and Evaluation folks at Knox. The point isn't that we're looking for indications of intellect, but indicators to stay on task. I do not have the figures in front of me here, but the data briefed at the Recruiting Commanders course demonstrated that HS grads are more likely to complete their first term of service than non-HS grads.

tequila
01-28-2008, 05:49 PM
I still know people that think I was an idiot to trade a law firm suit and tie for AF cammies. Some will never understand.

This is true for both civilian and military worlds. I'm a graduate of NYU and earn a six-figure salary in the financial world. The most incredulous people who learned of my background and my consequent decision to enlist in the USMC infantry were invariably USMC NCOs.

Graduating high school in modern America is not a particularly arduous task. Showing up is 90% of the battle. That the Army is unable to recruit to its goals for this sort of basically-qualified human being is more than a bit disturbing, and frankly I have a hard time understanding how people so casually dismiss this sort of trend. The inevitable downgrading of quality in the enlisted ranks that will result from the need to fill slots is quite easy to see.

Cavguy
01-28-2008, 05:53 PM
This touches on an area of research that's near and dear to me, the state of votech, science and engineering education in the United States. It amazes me with a two decade decline junior college and technology institute attendance that there can be so much contempt for what may be the largest (by enrollment) technical education program in the US.

One thing I admired during my time in Germany was their tiered educational system - university bound (doctor, lawyer, engineer, business, etc) , specialization bound (IT, technical), and trade bound (apprenticeships, votech)

Something like information systems engineering, which is usually a BS degree in the USA, was a specialized program. Univeristy education was mostly for traditional humanities, science, and mathematics.

I also liked that the system recognized that not everyone needs a high level broad education, and that some people just make good electricians, carpenters, machinists, etc. with a focused trade school and a rigorous apprenticeship program. I also found interesting that technical jobs were usually not what we would consider university grads, but were well trained in that particular discipline (info sys professionals, network engineers, etc.).

Contrary to popular belief, students were not forced into a track, although they were guided by academic potential and family concerns. But someone wanting to do the university route could do it despite the recommendations of the system, as long as they could pass.

The only downside is the lack of job mobility once graduated in a discipline. You'll never see an english lit major doing managerial work in Germany, no matter how qualified. Once your're in a discipline, you're in it. Downside is that it pigeonholes talent, upside is that when you get an electrician or carpenter in Germany, he's going to be professional, formally trained, and upheld to standards, not always the case in America.

I'm not advocating that system for the USA, but I do think the European model of votech and intermediate techinical specialization (without the votech "stigma") is a more reasonable course for those who just aren't good at reading Shakespeare. Produces a lot of qualified and able workers with good skills in the economy, and less "paper mill" degrees.

Presley Cannady
01-28-2008, 08:39 PM
One thing I admired during my time in Germany was their tiered educational system - university bound (doctor, lawyer, engineer, business, etc) , specialization bound (IT, technical), and trade bound (apprenticeships, votech)

Theoretically, the American post-secondary system is set up the same way. Thing is, the kids ain't buying it. HS is all about piping people into university period or not at all. The focus of community and junior colleges is producing transfer students. In the meantime, the United States losing precious tradesmen in fields ranging from construction to mining to the maritime--increasingly relying on informal apprenticeships and on a diminishing corps of college graduates who've put in the time for the BS and advanced degrees. I wish I had the numbers on tradesmen pursuing four-year and graduate degrees in their fields, but I suspect that number is shrinking as well.

What we apparently have more than enough of are folks with AS and BS degrees in accounting, social sciences and communications. I fear IS and graphics design is emerging as the next big boondoggle for students too afraid or lazy to work with their hands or even put pencil to paper.


Something like information systems engineering, which is usually a BS degree in the USA, was a specialized program. Univeristy education was mostly for traditional humanities, science, and mathematics.

They probably have a more rational compensation program for IT related stuff. Too many graduates with degrees in math and computer science are shuffled into coding jobs that pay a good $10 - 15K more than they're worth could be easily handled overseas or by a corps of certified specialists. I mean seriously, if a man can pick up enough PHP, HTML and Javascript to do some pretty high end web application development in three months, is it really worth setting the entry level bar at a 4 yr degree and $55K? And I'm talking about the salaried W-2 guys working in house, not consultants who have to answer to customers with more reasonable expectations for product costs.


I also liked that the system recognized that not everyone needs a high level broad education, and that some people just make good electricians, carpenters, machinists, etc. with a focused trade school and a rigorous apprenticeship program.

Wow, just like the US military, and last I checked they were sending folks to university at a considerably higher rate than the general population.


I also found interesting that technical jobs were usually not what we would consider university grads, but were well trained in that particular discipline (info sys professionals, network engineers, etc.).

And in the States we have a shortage in that talent; probably the biggest reason why the US on average trails behind Europe and large parts of East Asia in telecom availability in the firstplace. Devry and ITT, God bless'em, just ain't cutting it.


I'm not advocating that system for the USA, but I do think the European model of votech and intermediate techinical specialization (without the votech "stigma") is a more reasonable course for those who just aren't good at reading Shakespeare. Produces a lot of qualified and able workers with good skills in the economy, and less "paper mill" degrees.

The US already has a system in place that offers practical, technical training to tens of thousands of Americans right out of high school both efficiently and effectively--on top of that it's a government run program. The private sector is desperate to replicate that model, but it's stunted at every turn by a public school system determined to produce the lowest common denominator generalists and shuffle them into college. I also wouldn't advocate a system where students are compelled to pursue a single career track their entire lives, but it'd be nice if Americans started thinking more about what they wanted to do for the next decade or so before they graduate high school.

Presley Cannady
01-28-2008, 08:43 PM
High tech -- There is a huge difference between complex and complicated. When I took engineering courses, the mathematical assistance tool was the slide rule -- it was complicated. Then we transitioned to a much more complex tool -- the calculator. We were able to get more accurate answers in a fraction of the time, with minimal training on how to push the buttons. I won't even begin my tirade on teaching manual transmission use to the modern urban youth!

I'm still iffy on the benefits of removing slide-rules and the like from the educational experience. There's something to be said about getting an intuitive feel for all the errors you can make in a calculation that can only come from working something mechanical or analog by hand. Of course the MIT way is simply to expand the unit hours of a lab until you learn everything, from the oscilloscope to Matlab, so that you've got at least two options for working your way through a complicated problem. I hear a number of other technical institutes have replaced actual circuit labwork with Modelsim and Spice.

Steve Blair
01-28-2008, 09:00 PM
It's not necessarily the kids that don't buy into not going to college...it's the parents who tell that they aren't worth crap unless they do go to college. Look at what they're fed...you have to go to college to have a future...you aren't worth crap unless you get accepted by X University...and so on and so on. So they end up wasting time and money on some degree their parents told them would make them tons of money, only to discover that what they really want to do is be a mechanic or trouble-shoot network systems.

I trace some of it back to the 1960s and the most over-educated generation this country has ever produced (and some angst among a fair number of them as to why they got that education). They in turn fed the MBA mania in the 1980s and 1990s. And it's that mentality that's taken deep hold in our education system.

Tacitus
01-28-2008, 09:42 PM
I don't know about the schools in your areas, but around here, I wouldn't say it is particularly difficult to graduate from high school. This is based just on conversations with nieces and nephews, and their parents. They aren't exactly being asked to write 20 page term papers on Russian Literature, to perform differential calculus, understand organic chemistry, etc. No, this is pretty basic stuff, gentlemen, that is being asked.

If somebody can't graduate from high school around here, they either have a learning disability of some sort, will not go to school (for whatever reason), will not do the bare minimum to pass, or has some kind of problem with the (minimal) rules and discipline required in a typical classroom. Not exactly take charge, self-starting types.

My view is that if the military thought recruiting from this pool to begin with was such a good idea they never would have sought higher educational achievement standards from recruits to begin with. I hope that "strategic corporal" out there has something upstairs.

I detect an unexpected anti-intellectual sentiment in some of the comments. That is a little surprising to me, considering the relatively high level of discussion in the forums here. I don't know of a more literate forum than this one anywhere else on the web.

It is not unheard of for Americans to display anti-intellectualism for its own sake. Historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an interesting book about it called "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

selil
01-28-2008, 09:58 PM
Dang... I'm not sure what to say about the wholesale attack on higher education. Glad it's marct teaching anthro and not me.

Steve Blair
01-28-2008, 10:07 PM
Naw...no wholesale attack here. I just don't like seeing it turn into a mandatory function that may not be suited to what some people actually want to do with their lives. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I don't think the BA should be a "box check."

Ken White
01-28-2008, 10:24 PM
completion was tied solely to the fact that it showed ability to stick to a task.

I don't think anyone here's being anti intellectual or running a wholesale attack on higher education. Unless of course, one takes the statement or thought that "College isn't for everyone" as being either of those things. That statement makes sense to me and, apparently to about 60+ % of Americans who do not partake. The oft repeated figure of about 80% of university graduates working outside their field of study would seem to lend more credence to that statement...

In any event, I didn't pick up either of those vibes. I did pick up a denigration of those who do not meet the august standards some here seem to wish to apply. :D

The non-completion of a few hitches and some minor disciplinary problems will occur -- the guy with a minor record or who dropped out of high School is by definition a little rebellious. It'll make the NCOs and Officers have to work a bit harder and I suspect the rapid and easy Chaptering-out of those deemed deficient will cease. Been done before and will be again. It is truly no big thing.

Stan
01-28-2008, 10:27 PM
OMG, have we decided to try this pathetic attempt one more time? I’m sick of being at the bottom of the barrel with individuals who lacked the intestinal fortitude of finishing high school. Exactly when did this become an NCO's job to fix the educationally challenged in yet another election year?

Let’s go over the arduous task of the ASVAB. A multiple-choice test designed to evaluate skills in ten areas:
· General Science
· Arithmetic Reasoning
· Word Knowledge
· Paragraph Comprehension
· Numerical Operations
· Coding Speed
· Auto and Shop Information
· Mathematics Knowledge
· Mechanical Comprehension and
· Electronics

The good news - For those who entered in the 80s, Numerical Operations and Code Speed were omitted :rolleyes:.


Numerical Operations contains simple, two-number computations in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. All numbers are one- or two-digit whole numbers.

I guess somebody concluded it was too hard on folks.

The answer is NO WAY. Let them stay in school or merely fail themselves, but not the Army.

Ken White
01-28-2008, 11:04 PM
Having spent a few years dealing with less than stellar recruits and no easy outs for 'unsuitability' methinks a pole vault over a small pile is in view.

The paper is vastly overrated as a predictor. Ability to suck up some things without whining and get things done is not shown by possession of a diploma.

(I'd add or a degree but I don't want to start a flame war...)

selil
01-29-2008, 01:06 AM
I to exited the venue of high school in less than a stellar manner for a military career and after a less than stellar exit from the military (I came home on my shield) entered my higher education career after a stint in law enforcement and consulting. Interesting so many of us followed similar paths at an early age...

Presley Cannady
01-29-2008, 01:21 AM
Unless of course, one takes the statement or thought that "College isn't for everyone" as being either of those things.

I'm definitely not partial to that view. On the other hand, I do suspect college isn't for every 18 year old and acknowledge military service produces on average better collegians than those matriculating right out of high school. The professional achievement of college-educated former enlisted compared to their civilian peers is not well understood to my knowledge, but I doubt it tracks poorly with academic success.

Ken White
01-29-2008, 02:24 AM
I'm definitely not partial to that view...

that:

1. You do not share the view I expressed; "...the statement or thought that "College isn't for everyone" as being either of..." (anti intellectual or a wholesale attack on higher education) using the phrase that you quote.

Or

2. College isn't for everyone.

Unsure which you meant. The rest of your comment seems to incline toward the latter view:


... On the other hand, I do suspect college isn't for every 18 year old and acknowledge military service produces on average better collegians than those matriculating right out of high school. The professional achievement of college-educated former enlisted compared to their civilian peers is not well understood to my knowledge, but I doubt it tracks poorly with academic success.

No idea on the figures but anecdotally as a GI Bill student post Korea (and again, a drop out...;) ) and as one who met many other GI Bill students later, I'd say that is a good assumption.

selil
01-29-2008, 03:41 AM
The professional achievement of college-educated former enlisted compared to their civilian peers is not well understood to my knowledge, but I doubt it tracks poorly with academic success.

My experience with former enlisted military members in my courses is that they have a higher preponderance of radical (outside the curve) success. When a challenge is offered they accept instantly and succeed wildly.

Ron Humphrey
01-29-2008, 05:02 AM
The paper is vastly overrated as a predictor. Ability to suck up some things without whining and get things done is not shown by possession of a diploma.

(I'd add or a degree but I don't want to start a flame war...)

in my experience many if not most who would accomplish a given task despite a lack of defined tasking were not on the honor roll, generally the opposite.

(for a variety of reasons):wry:

Norfolk
01-29-2008, 05:33 AM
in my experience many if not most who would accomplish a given task despite a lack of defined tasking were not on the honor roll, generally the opposite.

(for a variety of reasons):wry:

Only too true Ron. A man who has the will and the mental agility to make it in the real world, even if he is a "high-school dropout", is rather likelier to be the kind of man to be able to create order out of chaos, than a man who has "learned" within the comparatively predictable and safe confines of "the system" - selil is right on the money about this. And if any further proof need be required for what the latter path made lead to within the military, I would offer the nearly universal observation of most of us that sending officers to civilian universities for MBA's and MSc's in SA, etc., tends to "ruin" the professional military competence of many of the same said officers.

Wilf made a very good point a week or two ago, when he stated that the Royal Marines have a solid approach to recruiting officers; they take both those who have either a Service Academy background or civilian university background, as well as those who possess only a high school matriculation - a couple "O" levels and half a dozen "A" levels.

As to enlisted man education, high school is great, but considering that many of the best soldiers have had relatively modest formal civilian educations, a high school matriculation is unlikely to be necessary, except for certain technical tasks. As to the argument that at least a high school education is or will be required for present or future technologies, that may or may not be true. But it seems to me that twenty years ago, the GAO went after the Army saying that the average soldier had an IQ that was substantially below that of the minimum deemed necessary to effectively use its high-tech weapons - even while uneducated Mujahideen were knocking Soviet fighter-bombers out of the sky with Stingers.

The point is, don't confuse civilian education with that required for the military; the two are quite different, and necessarily so for the most part.

Geoff
01-29-2008, 06:36 AM
Who would you want to help change your tyre? The man who says I know the theory or the man that can do it?

So how do education standards affects the overall standard of our combat projection. What are we asking people to do? Military trg is about developing muscle memory, so that they can react to situations quickly and instinctively - don't need a degree for that!

I must confess that I was not a good student, never have been and never will be - I tend to learn by sticking my hand in the fire and then saying ouch, I still managed to gain a Commission, mainly, I was told through my refusal to give up - ever. A degree does not confer fighting spirit, it says you can study!

The modern day soldier is trained to use his tools - whatever your thoughts on the depth, they receive basic training, they learn and develop their skills through experience and practice.

Of course soldiers need to be able to understand and execute orders - but isn't that what the interview process is for?

I have seen some very lowly academically qualified people who have risen to giddy heights - because they were given the chance - FORGIVE ME Academy Sergeant Major!

Stan
01-29-2008, 08:26 AM
Pardon me if I take that a bit personally. Generalizations are rarely - if ever - accurate. And to categorize all those who did not complete HS as being "bottom of the barrel" or "lacking intestinal fortitude" is insulting to the many who had little choice in the matter. What happened to judging a soldier by his demonstrated abilities? Even in the MI field, most of my peers and superiors over the years judged their fellow soldiers only by their performance, not by what they had on paper before they put on the uniform.

Ted, sorry if you took that personally. It is a generalization, but an opinion I formed from the mid-70s. During the early 80s between raising educational standards in the ranks and the ASVAB bar, we witnessed a very welcomed clean up of the NCO ranks. Many of those people (with or without a high school education) had more than demonstrated their lack of desire, drive and ability. By the same token, we lost some extremely talented and experienced NCOs.

As CR6 and Ken stated, getting through HS is one of many indicators that the individual is serious about accomplishing a task. Even when some of those folks were told they would have to retake the ASVAB, they were given every opportunity to attend specific classes that would concentrate on their individually weak areas, and were even offered classes that would prepare them for a GED.

I am not advocating that our enlisted have a Masters by the rank of E-5 as was in another thread, but I’m strongly against reducing both the Army's and ASVAB test standards. I think we are once again setting good folks up for failure, be it in the Army or certainly later as a civilian.


Hell, I dropped out the first year of HS. Had to - my father had left the year prior, and being the oldest of four, the financial situation was too tight for me to think of doing anything else. I had tried working and going to school for a year, but it wasn't enough. We were constantly on the edge of losing the house. It was only tract factory housing a block from the RR yards, but the other options were not good. So, I worked at a variety of manual labor jobs around Detroit until the next two siblings in line were old enough - one about to graduate from HS, the other right behind.

Then, as soon as I had the chance, I was at the recruiter's office and signing on the line. For me, it was a welcome escape and I never looked back. I certainly am not "anti-intellectual", but I am also strongly against arbitrarily condemning an individual who did not complete a formal eduction to a level also determined arbitrarily. For us to close off the opportunity serve in uniform to those who test well enough to enlist simply because they do not have a diploma is just plain stupid. You will never know what potential talent you keep out.

And as regards discipline, from my own personal experience during a sentence as TRADOC cadre, those with both undergrad and advanced degrees are just as likely to get themselves in deep trouble as HS grads or those with just a GED. Just as the paper is not a true indicator of native intelligence, it is also not indicative of who is or is not a troublemaker.

Your situation was far different, although not unique. I’m certain anyone would be extremely proud of their son or daughter putting their youth and life on hold for the good of their family.

Are you saying that graduating from high school is an arbitrarily derived scholastic level, or the ASVAB test standards?

You’re correct, having a GED instead of a high school diploma means little, and is in no way an indicator of future success. All I had was a GED (because by 11th grade I saw no reason to risk my life by attending another year in Suitland, Maryland).

Presley Cannady
01-29-2008, 10:26 AM
2. College isn't for everyone.

This one. I don't buy that "college isn't for everyone." I also don't buy that HS prepares everyone adequately to go to college right after graduation and eek the most value out of their degree program. On top of that, I believe the reason why HS fails in that regard has less to do with the innate aptitude of graduates and more to do with a faculty focus on hardcore college prep for identified gifted students while offering lip service to standardized testing for the rest--resulting in a divide between future collegiate superstars who've had one or two years of some college experience and the lower three quarter percentiles. I think Canada and the US are the only two countries in the world with a system as screwed up as that.

Presley Cannady
01-29-2008, 10:29 AM
in my experience many if not most who would accomplish a given task despite a lack of defined tasking were not on the honor roll, generally the opposite.

(for a variety of reasons):wry:

This is my experience as well, though I'd love some well funded longitudinal study addressing this exact question to back me up. ;)

Presley Cannady
01-29-2008, 10:42 AM
I must confess that I was not a good student, never have been and never will be - I tend to learn by sticking my hand in the fire and then saying ouch, I still managed to gain a Commission, mainly, I was told through my refusal to give up - ever.

Well, if the measure of a "good student" is someone who succeeds by the norms of academic America, then we're talking about folks who are principally self-taught from the textbook and score well on tests and homework. Even then, the best ones are those with the initiative to tackle hands on projects that hone their grasp of the material in some meaningful way, whether its anthropological field work, real historical research, coding and robotics contests, math meets, repeating experiments or calculations in original scientific research, etc. The people who genuinely learn by abstract instruction alone are rare--so rare that I haven't met one or even heard of one indisputably educated in such a fashion.

Could you imagine placing FM 3-24 in the hands of just anyone and expecting them to digest its lessons with judicious application in mind without any prerequisite expertise in the domain? Civilians like me require a great deal of case study and shepherding from hands on types to appreciate how the doctrine applies in scenario, and even then we lack the experience to make reasonable judgments in any arbitrary set of circumstances. I couldn't tell you what would've happened if Abdul Sattar had never been born, or who you'd go talk to (if anyone) in his place, or how'd you'd approach him, or where his ashira's interests lie at any given moment in any particular area, or even how to find that information on my own or determine whether or not I could reconcile their wants and needs with mine and my resources.

William F. Owen
01-29-2008, 12:20 PM
Could you imagine placing FM 3-24 in the hands of just anyone and expecting them to digest its lessons with judicious application in mind without any prerequisite expertise in the domain?

...and if FM3-24 isn't obvious to Captains and above? Does it mean it was badly written or Captains need to be smarter. Say what you like about the UK's ADP Land-Ops. It's VERY easy to read.

Presley Cannady
01-29-2008, 02:35 PM
...and if FM3-24 isn't obvious to Captains and above? Does it mean it was badly written or Captains need to be smarter.

It's not a question of whether it's obvious or poorly written. I'm just pointing out that with training and practice FM 3-24 becomes far more penetrable. In my world, recipes and software design pattern texts are great resources, but for most people they don't translate much into an improved skill set if simply read and not personally tested day to day. The larger point here was to dismiss the idea that a "good student" is one who learns more by theory rather than application.

William F. Owen
01-29-2008, 03:11 PM
The larger point here was to dismiss the idea that a "good student" is one who learns more by theory rather than application.

Exactly and FM 3-24 is doctrine, therefore "what is taught" and therefore must be accessible to it's intended audience, and not purely of academic interest. I suggest that the utility (or otherwise) of FM 3-24 holds this point in sharp relief.

Norfolk
01-29-2008, 04:49 PM
...and if FM3-24 isn't obvious to Captains and above? Does it mean it was badly written or Captains need to be smarter. Say what you like about the UK's ADP Land-Ops. It's VERY easy to read.

Commonwealth pubs tend to be simple, direct, and to the point, with relatively few illustrations, and until recently they were rather short of the nice photos that US pubs have, if they had any at all. You could fall asleep if you weren't careful and on the ball at times. USMC pubs tend to be quite readable and with an appropriate amount of illustrations, and in recent years good pictures too. US Army pubs tend to be long, pedantic, and prone to giving the reader headaches - but with lots of nice pics!

Ken White
01-29-2008, 06:50 PM
intended to justify a position...

Presley said:


This one. I don't buy that "college isn't for everyone."

We can agree to disagree on that. I know a very large number of people aside from myself who don't subscribe to that view. I'd also submit we have cheapened the value of a degree by lowering the standard and overemphasizing the 'requirement' to obtain one. That however, is way off this thread and off the purpose of this board. I do agree with the rest of your comment from which I extracted that quote.

Norfolk said:


...USMC pubs tend to be quite readable and with an appropriate amount of illustrations, and in recent years good pictures too. US Army pubs tend to be long, pedantic, and prone to giving the reader headaches - but with lots of nice pics!"

True. However, it hasn't always been that way, it's the Army's version of 'keeping up with the Jones's -- media type... :wry:

Schmedlap
01-29-2008, 07:05 PM
"... I would offer the nearly universal observation of most of us that sending officers to civilian universities for MBA's and MSc's in SA, etc., tends to 'ruin' the professional military competence of many of the same said officers."

I think it is simply the time away from the profession that causes any ruin, to the degree that any even occurs. Whether the break in service occurs for civilian education or other reason is irrelevant. I am in an MBA program now and I can recognize that much of the curriculum dealing with human resources and stakeholder theory is a rational concept taken to politically-twisted and irrational extremes. Neither I nor anyone else is required, or gullible enough, to simply accept every theory or opinion as gospel. It's like most of my NCO's used to say: "You can't BS a BS-er." Any veteran should have the ability to receive a civilian education while recognizing what is crap and what is credible.

If I go back to the military then I will be rusty as a result of my time away from the profession, not due to my MBA.

Presley Cannady
01-30-2008, 01:33 AM
I'm not sure how it works in other MBA programs, but the core Sloan track is essentially data modeling, finance, and communications. Students then proceed into electives of their own choosing, but as far as I can tell these are labs were the best science available on a given topic (which instructors emphatically describe as highly conditional) is presented (defense and objections and all), explained and tested as best as possible against real world cases.

MattC86
01-30-2008, 02:49 PM
I think one potential thing being overlooked here is that while lower standards for recruits may or may not have an impact on the overall quality of soldier (I have my own ideas but won't contest what has been said here), it DOES continue and probably accelerate the gap and disconnect between those who serve, particularly as EMs, and those who do not.

Not that this is an intended consequence, nor is it the fault of anyone but the so-called "higher" socio-economic classes for not choosing to serve themselves, but when the population as a whole is becoming more and more educated, and the service population is simultaneously lowering its requirements and accepting more and more non-HS graduates, you're widening the gap and creating the possibility for resentment (in both directions). In a democratic country where the military is a reflection of and arm of the citizenry, that is a very unhealthy thing.

Perceptions of the military as a bunch of dead-enders sent off to fight and die or of the population as a whole as rich, spoiled, and morally and ethically inferior to the serving military are very, very dangerous things in a democracy. We may know they're not true, but social divides like this propagate stereotypes, distrust, and eventually resentment.

Matt

Steve Blair
01-30-2008, 04:06 PM
Perceptions of the military as a bunch of dead-enders sent off to fight and die or of the population as a whole as rich, spoiled, and morally and ethically inferior to the serving military are very, very dangerous things in a democracy. We may know they're not true, but social divides like this propagate stereotypes, distrust, and eventually resentment.

Matt

This has actually been the most common historical perception of the military by the American public at large...at least until the end of World War II. And the feelings about the civilian population were held by a fair number of officers (at least) during the post-Civil War period. But at that time the officers tended to socialize with the social elite anyhow, so they reserved the bulk of their disdain for the "masses."

Ken White
01-30-2008, 04:35 PM
Officers Guide of 1886 (I think that's the edition) had this line in it:

"Enlisted Men are ignorant and stupid but are extremely cunning and sly and bear considerable watching."

Always got a chuckle at that... :D

marct
01-30-2008, 05:15 PM
Hi Guys,


There are advantages to coalition warfare, but unless your partners see it the same as you, there are disadvantages and risks as well. If its our most dire and direct interests - that does not leave much room for anything but stopping the Huns on the beach (unless they infiltrate from Canada- Marc we're watching you guys:D)

Heh! Rob, you haven't been watching The Canadian Conspiracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285470/) have you :eek:?


Dang... I'm not sure what to say about the wholesale attack on higher education. Glad it's marct teaching anthro and not me.

Honestly, I don't think it's an attach on higher education but, rather, an attack on credentialism. I certainly agree with Presley that college isn't for everyone, at least if that is modified to "right now". I have had to many 1st year students (I think you folks south of the border call them "freshmen" :D) who a) had no idea why they were there, b) had no interest at all in being there, and c) had no idea what to do now that they were there.

I think that creping credentialism (meaning substituting a credential for an actual test and training) is one of the worst things about modern society. Would someone please tel me why it is necessary to have a BA in order to work at a coffee shop (no sierra, that's a required credential at some Canadian coffee shops). I know how it all came about, I just think it is a marker of an increasingly sick society.

Marc

Steve Blair
01-30-2008, 05:22 PM
Officers Guide of 1886 (I think that's the edition) had this line in it:

"Enlisted Men are ignorant and stupid but are extremely cunning and sly and bear considerable watching."

Always got a chuckle at that... :D

Ken,

That line is one of the great myths of the military. It's been attributed to George Washington of all people, and I know there's a cite out there claiming the Officer's Guide. Problem is that there was no such book (at least not that I've been able to track down...although one might have been privately published). I've also seen it tracked back to a 1904 edition of a naval officer's guide.

One of these days I want to do some serious digging on this one.

Ken White
01-30-2008, 05:38 PM
...
Honestly, I don't think it's an attach on higher education but, rather, an attack on credentialism. I certainly agree with Presley that college isn't for everyone, at least if that is modified to "right now". I have had to many 1st year students (I think you folks south of the border call them "freshmen" :D) who a) had no idea why they were there, b) had no interest at all in being there, and c) had no idea what to do now that they were there.

However that appears to be true here in the US -- in spades. I took a couple of courses at a local University as an auditing adult a couple of years ago and spent a lot of time talking to the other far, far younger students. I was impressed by the innate decency and common sense of most and the absolute cluelessness of many at what they wanted out of college or what they were going to do afterwards. There were, of course, exceptions but my impression was that about 80% were there solely because they thought they were supposed to be...


I think that creping credentialism (meaning substituting a credential for an actual test and training) is one of the worst things about modern society. Would someone please tel me why it is necessary to have a BA in order to work at a coffee shop (no sierra, that's a required credential at some Canadian coffee shops). I know how it all came about, I just think it is a marker of an increasingly sick society.
Marc

My perception is that it occurred here due to two factors; the first being that the Baby Boomer parents wanted their kids to have better opportunities than they believed they had and sent the kids off to get what was here and then a fairly inexpensive further education.

They believed that necessary because in the late fifties, we started dumbing down the High Schools. Confronted with typical post pubescent angst and rebelliousness, the educational milieu here decided to accommodate instead channeling that and forcing the kids to study and develop rudimentary skills. :mad:

As was pointed out up thread, the High Schools thus focused on college prep and anyone who didn't wish to pursue that course was left to founder. So just as the Army decided that a High School completion indicated an ability to finish a task, the commercial world decided that a Degree was an even better indicator of capability.

All those factors combined to effectively set a new and unnecessary norm and flood the market; todays degree is yesteryears diploma and we're all worse off for it. I suspect that soon a Masters will be required for the Coffee Shop... :wry:

marct
01-30-2008, 05:55 PM
Hi Ken,


However that appears to be true here in the US -- in spades. I took a couple of courses at a local University as an auditing adult a couple of years ago and spent a lot of time talking to the other far, far younger students. I was impressed by the innate decency and common sense of most and the absolute cluelessness of many at what they wanted out of college or what they were going to do afterwards. There were, of course, exceptions but my impression was that about 80% were there solely because they thought they were supposed to be...

I've seen the same thing myself. I've also noticed a slight shift over the last 3 years or so with fewer people being totally clueless and more being interested in trying to get an actual education - mostly, from what they say, because they felt totally ripped off in HS.


My perception is that it occurred here due to two factors; the first being that the Baby Boomer parents wanted their kids to have better opportunities than they believed they had and sent the kids off to get what was here and then a fairly inexpensive further education.

Yup. In both the US and Canada, the cost for returning servicemen to go o university was significantly lower than ever before which sparked an inflationary trend in the general availability of degrees.


They believed that necessary because in the late fifties, we started dumbing down the High Schools. Confronted with typical post pubescent angst and rebelliousness, the educational milieu here decided to accommodate instead channeling that and forcing the kids to study and develop rudimentary skills. :mad:

Agreed. When that is added to the recent insanity of what is "taught" at HS, I am surprised that anyone has any basic study skills left :mad:. I'm not sure about the US, but in Ontario at least (education is a provincial responsibility), the HS system is designed to destroy original thinking rather than provide the basic building blocks that will help it. I have seen too many students who "survived" (their term, not mine) HS only to blossom under my nasty teaching standards ("What, you haven't read the Bible? It's the core cultural text for Western civilization! Go out and read the entire thing, including the Apocrypha, for next week and we'll carry on the discussion.").


As was pointed out up thread, the High Schools thus focused on college prep and anyone who didn't wish to pursue that course was left to founder. So just as the Army decided that a High School completion indicated an ability to finish a task, the commercial world decided that a Degree was an even better indicator of capability.

We've seen an interesting phenomenon over the past 5-8 years or so - people going to University to get a BA and then to community college (basically ours are vocational schools) to get a certificate. They learn how to do it at community college and why to do it at university. It's a response to the way the job-candidate nexus has shifted here.


All those factors combined to effectively set a new and unnecessary norm and flood the market; todays degree is yesteryears diploma and we're all worse off for it. I suspect that soon a Masters will be required for the Coffee Shop... :wry:

I used to joke that a 3 year BA (we don't really have those 2 year Associate degrees) should have a skills component that required learning how to say "And would you like fries with that?". Now I don't joke about it anymore - just add it in <sigh>.

Marc

Ken White
01-30-2008, 06:08 PM
Ken,

That line is one of the great myths of the military. It's been attributed to George Washington of all people, and I know there's a cite out there claiming the Officer's Guide. Problem is that there was no such book (at least not that I've been able to track down...although one might have been privately published). I've also seen it tracked back to a 1904 edition of a naval officer's guide.

One of these days I want to do some serious digging on this one.

I ran across it at Ft. Knox. It appeared in the 1978 Defense Appropriation Act with no source. One of the NCOs got curious and went to the USAARMS Library and dug around and came up with a 'source.' I may have the title of the nominal source wrong and the year, as I said, is suspect -- 30 years has dimmed the ol' synapses -- but it was something along that line and about that time in the 19th century.

The guy was fairly reliable so I didn't dig into it, just took it at face value. I've heard the line since several times in various places but had never heard it before 1977 though it may have been around. Nor have I heard it attributed to Washington (and based on what I've read that he wrote or signed, it doesn't sound like something he'd say).

So, apocryphal or not, good line, regardless.. :D

(and if it is apocryphal, proves what I've long suspected about appropriators -- they make stuff up :eek: ...)

Tom Odom
01-30-2008, 06:35 PM
So, apocryphal or not, good line, regardless..

And true :D

Stan will shoot me...:eek:

From the History of the NCO Pamphlet:


...(Private) Lowe was intelligent, well-educated, and strong, which made him an ideal soldier for the years ahead.

A few days after enlisting he was sent to Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, a school for mounted recruits. Lowe received training, drilling on foot and horseback, and practice with the saber. He also met “Big Mit,” a tough Irishman with a crude disposition.

Several weeks after enlisting, Lowe sat eating chicken at a table in the mess hall. Big Mit, a six-feet two-inch giant weighing 225 pounds, decided he would finish off all the chicken on the table. He looked at Lowe, who sat
silent, and sneered an insult. Lowe sprang to his feet, drew his saber, and beat Big Mit with it.

Luckily for Lowe and Big Mit, the saber was dull, and after a few days in the hospital, Big Mit began a long healing process. No action was taken against Lowe when he explained what had happened. ....

Sundays were inspection days. The men, their barracks, and gear would be inspected by their Troop Commander. One Saturday evening, Big Mit decided to trade his gear for Lowe’s. When Lowe ret.urned from supper he noticed the gear on his bunk was not the clean, sharplooking equipment he had left. Looking around, Lowe found his rightful gear on Big Mit’s bunk. He took his
gear, leaving the soiled gear in its place.

When Big Mit returned from supper to find his old dirty gear laying on his bunk, he was furious. Grabbing a carbine, Big Mit charged towards Lowe. Lowe drew his saber and again beat Big Mit with all his might. Two officers of the guard separated the men. Big Mit was taken to the hospital for a month’s stay. Lowe meanwhile explained his actions and was sent back to his unit (*Lowe}
The two episodes with Big Mit had little effect on Lowe’s career. His ducation, intelligence, and courage were more important.

I never touched Stan's chicken, gear, or his beer...:wry:

Schmedlap
01-31-2008, 02:23 AM
I'm not sure if it is just the nature of an MBA program, but I notice that very few of my peers seem to have any interest at all in what is being taught. Almost every question takes the form of "if this were asked on a test..." or "will this be on the test?" They just want that MBA diploma for the increased earning power that it will bring them - usually in the line of work that they are already doing.

On the issues of "college is not for everyone" and "creeping credentialism" - both comments that I agree with - Charles Murray wrote a 3-part series of articles in the Wall Street Journal last year on this topic.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541

Ron Humphrey
01-31-2008, 03:02 AM
I'm not sure if it is just the nature of an MBA program, but I notice that very few of my peers seem to have any interest at all in what is being taught. Almost every question takes the form of "if this were asked on a test..." or "will this be on the test?" They just want that MBA diploma for the increased earning power that it will bring them - usually in the line of work that they are already doing.

On the issues of "college is not for everyone" and "creeping credentialism" - both comments that I agree with - Charles Murray wrote a 3-part series of articles in the Wall Street Journal last year on this topic.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541

I have over 160 credit hours worth of classes from community college and through my Baker degree program . Problem is too many of the classes were tech education based and not all gen ed courses that I needed where gotten out of the way . This doesn't include any credit for DLI or votech type training.

If all they look for is the piece of paper I got an AAS thats it. kinda a different take and completely my own fault for worrying more about learning things I thought would help in my jobs than what blocks were being checked;
neverless exemplary of how certs become more important than real knowledge or past experience.

Who knew basket weaving was more important than police management and supervision or Teaching Careers Awareness :confused:

marct
01-31-2008, 04:37 AM
Hi Ron,

The idea behind gened courses was to expand people's viewpoint beyond narrow technical areas. As a general idea, I actually agree with the goal, but the means are a little out of kilter with reality. Nowadays, we have a social requirement for what my university's PR department calls "lifelong learning". This is leading to a split in pedagogical strategies between those that are job/career focused, those that are perceptually focused, and those somewhere in the middle - call them "intellectually focused".

At the heart of that debate is the unspoken, although often shouted, question of "what is education?" and, whispered quietly, who has a monopoly on it. One of the best "educated" people I ever knew, in the old sense of a broad knowledge base and an inquiring mind, was my grandfather who never got past grade 3. By todays credentialized standards, he wouldn't be able to get an entry level job in either of his careers (2 BTN RCHA and Brewers Retail... something about that combo....).

For the past couple of centuries, "education" has been the monopoly of "educational institutions" aided and abetted by legislation and business interests. Part of the reason was quite rational - you can't have a "high technology" society (even the late 19th century version of one) without near universal literacy and that means you have to force kids out of the workplace and into schools.

But it also has a downside - it means that you have to control the process of education by establishing set standards including pedagogical standards, and standards are not purely technical, they are also social and political. In order to establish the social legitimacy of the new education system in the 19th century, older forms of education had to be denigrated and stigmatized; "self taught" had to be relegated to myth, while "university educated" had to be elevated which, in turn, has created a hierarchy of "knowledge experts" whose expertise is established by their credentials rather than by their accomplishments.

Follow this line up to the present and we end up with a very nasty situation. I just finished a draft of a paper and sent it off to some friends and colleagues for comment. One of the people I sent it to is a very intelligent acquaintance of mine, who is at an institution of higher education which will be un-named (no, it's not mine). He commented that this was the first time someone with a PhD had ever asked his opinion. My response was, as always, eloquent (read "WTF??????).

For me, this exchange crystallized one of the big problems I see in today's education system - the idea that if you have the credential, you must know what you are talking about. I like to think that I am fairly intelligent, but a large part of that is just basic common sense based on Socrates, "ask the man who knows [from experience]". And this gets us back to experiential knowledge, which is a strategy that was excluded from the formal education system during the late 19th century.

So, back to gened courses. Increasingly, in Canada at least, we are starting to see the development of PLAR (Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition - and you guys thought it was only the military that had useless acronyms :D). PLAR is a strategy by many educational institutions to bring experiential learning into the "credentials fold" especially amongst recent immigrants where their education systems are radically different from ours. Ron, maybe you should think about applying for a PLAR credit for gened and working the system that way ;).

Marc

selil
01-31-2008, 04:40 AM
Marc you're channeling John Dewey again.

marct
01-31-2008, 05:13 AM
Marc you're channeling John Dewey again.

Summoning his spirit, yeah, but not channeling - I'm not a medium :cool:. But you're right, Dewey was the architect of the North American education movement.

BTW, the little imp in the triangle next to Dewey's spirit is Uncle Karl (pace his work in the economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844).

selil
01-31-2008, 02:36 PM
Marc, maybe what we need to do is write a paper on how the "industrial revoluton" era education better served the military establishment then the "enlightened Dr. Spock" form of education we have now. I don't know about your University but at ours the "stove pipes" of the specialiazation process is breaking down. Inter-disciplinary is the catch phrase now and working toward a balance between theory and practice. When I got my Masters Degree the university I was attending was "state of the practice", and now working on my PhD the phrase is "applied research". My children though are being exposed to preliminary (primary) education that actually promotes concepts like "if they can't skip, then they can't read", and oh another goody "We don't care about accuracy they need to do math problems quickly" and feel good about it... I don't think the wave of education k-12 (with no child left behind laws) is going to serve the military. Credentialism is being fed by the fact the k-12 system is not doing it's job and you have to finish a students education. I'm not sure in higher education we're doing that well currently but I think it is getting better.

marct
01-31-2008, 03:38 PM
Hi Selil,


Marc, maybe what we need to do is write a paper on how the "industrial revoluton" era education better served the military establishment then the "enlightened Dr. Spock" form of education we have now.

May be worth looking at..... after I get other projects finished and you finish your course from the netherworld :D.


I don't know about your University but at ours the "stove pipes" of the specialiazation process is breaking down. Inter-disciplinary is the catch phrase now and working toward a balance between theory and practice. When I got my Masters Degree the university I was attending was "state of the practice", and now working on my PhD the phrase is "applied research".

It's similar up here, but if you look at the disciplinary stove pipes, they are actually getting reinforced as far as career paths are concerned. Basically, in order to get hired you have to be doing approved research (aka Kuhnian "normal science") and you only get to play in interdisciplinarity once you have tenure.

OTOH, the Institute I work out of is purely interdisciplinary and the program I teach in is the core of that (we have several other highly successful programs that are area focused). Hanging around and chatting is amazing - we have sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, computer scientists, cognitive science folks, human rights people, etc., etc. On the Third Hand, our Institute's director had to resign last month due to stress brought on, in part, by dealing with inter-unit politics :(.


My children though are being exposed to preliminary (primary) education that actually promotes concepts like "if they can't skip, then they can't read", and oh another goody "We don't care about accuracy they need to do math problems quickly" and feel good about it... I don't think the wave of education k-12 (with no child left behind laws) is going to serve the military.

This has been going on for too long now :mad:. I think my favorite analysis of it is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a81YvrV7Vv8).


Credentialism is being fed by the fact the k-12 system is not doing it's job and you have to finish a students education. I'm not sure in higher education we're doing that well currently but I think it is getting better.

I think that there are some significant differences between higher ed in Canada and the US - outside of the fact you sent us many of your Marxists in the 60's and 70's :mad:. I'm not sure how that plays out in terms of perceptions about the military....

Marc

wm
01-31-2008, 05:33 PM
I think that there are some significant differences between higher ed in Canada and the US - outside of the fact you sent us many of your Marxists in the 60's and 70's :mad:. I'm not sure how that plays out in terms of perceptions about the military...

As much as I know it didn't help you out, I'm glad we off-loaded at least some of them up north. There's no telling how much worse the US education system would be if they had all stayed here and become "educators."We already have enough of them pushing out the "free speech community" related tripe found in too many language arts programs and that is a root cause of a lot of the other problems within our primary and secondary education programs.

Stan
01-31-2008, 05:55 PM
Hey Marc !

I'm not sure how that plays out in terms of perceptions about the military....

Marc

A little Googling and found this 2007 survey (http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm). Interesting footnotes regarding the military. The same survey (fortunately) determined that both Canada and the US Literacy rates are 99%. However, the Canucks seem to have an enormous amount of Roman Catholics (Mediums if you will) :D


Military: One of the main reasons why the US spends so much on its military is that it is the economic leader of the world. Holding that place makes enemies of smaller, less wealthy countries and/or groups that oppose the fundamental beliefs of democracy and freedom that the United States stands for. For example, North Korea spends approximately 31% of its GDP on its military, while its people literally starve...

...Canada plays a part in keeping the peace, though its political support greatly outweighs its military contributions. Many First or Second World countries, and a few Third World countries have the ability to defeat Canada alone in a military engagement.

However, Canada is one of the safest places in the world to live because the US is immediately west and south of it.

:)

marct
01-31-2008, 07:35 PM
Hey Stan,


A little Googling and found this 2007 survey (http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm). Interesting footnotes regarding the military. The same survey (fortunately) determined that both Canada and the US Literacy rates are 99%. However, the Canucks seem to have an enormous amount of Roman Catholics (Mediums if you will)

Actually, religious affiliation in Canada is measured in a really weird way - it is a self-determination based, in part, on religion at birth. My gut guess would be that of that 42.6% fully 80% are "non-practicing". We are still in the process of publishing our last census material (2006 (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/release/index.cfm)), but some interesting trends are starting to appear.

Marc

Rex Brynen
01-31-2008, 08:45 PM
Actually, religious affiliation in Canada is measured in a really weird way - it is a self-determination based, in part, on religion at birth. My gut guess would be that of that 42.6% fully 80% are "non-practicing". We are still in the process of publishing our last census material (2006 (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/release/index.cfm)), but some interesting trends are starting to appear.


Indeed! Support for abortion rights and same-sex marriage are highest in our most (90% +) "Catholic" province... support for the latter was so high that the original bill on same sex civil unions passed the legislature unanimously.

Plus all the cool French swear words here in Quebec have Catholic Church origins ;)

Tom Odom
01-31-2008, 08:57 PM
Indeed! Support for abortion rights and same-sex marriage are highest in our most (90% +) "Catholic" province... support for the latter was so high that the original bill on same sex civil unions passed the legislature unanimously.

Plus all the cool French swear words here in Quebec have Catholic Church origins ;)

I told Marc that I have watched Bon Cop, Good Cop 3 times now on cable and laughed my ass off each time. My wife who has never been outside the US thinks I am crazy. I attribute my like of this film to my service with Canadian forces in Lebanon, Egypt, and Rwanda.

Question: How come the Bon Cop got the crappy car?

Answer: To compensate for his nailing the Good Cop's sister!