Dumb and Dumber? Or Condescending and Misguided?

[Ken White]

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.

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

[Norfolk]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

...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]

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...

[Schmedlap]

"... 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.