Dumb and Dumber? Or Condescending and Misguided?

[Schmedlap]

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?ac...int&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]

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)

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]

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...

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]

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_r...RAND_TR193.pdf

[William F. Owen]

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]

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.

[Presley Cannady]

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.

[Cavguy]

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.

[selil]

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]

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]

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).