Another Loopy Anthropologist

[Adam L]

a. All commissioned officers need to be brought in with a bachelors degree at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (for the most part this happens now however there are exceptions). All captains/O-3’s are sent for a masters degree at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).

1. I have to disagree with you on this. Bachelors degrees used to mean someone was educated (most of the time.) Now most bachelors degrees are only an assurance that they NOW know what they should have known coming out of high school. (Most of the time.) I am not saying that all people are like this, just too many. The work I have seen out of schools that are touted as being among the finest institutions in the country is not what it should be. (This is a very generous way of putting it.) What I am trying to say is that I don't care if someone has a BA, MA or PHD. I care about the quality of their work, their capabilities and knowledge. The masters should have to in some way be relevant to their duties. If you are proposing this as a benefit, that might be a good idea. No matter the concentration, I have been very underwhelmed by many of the MA and PHD students I have run into. (Again I am not saying all of them.) I have read doctoral thesis of students out of some very good schools, and they are not what they should be. Sorry if I am offending anyone with this, but I challenge anyone to say that education has not gone down over the last 50 years.

b. All warrant officers are sent for a bachelors degree at W2 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to(GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).

Again, is this a benefit or a requirement. Although I see it as a good idea for many, I really question whether it would be better to provide the education in house. It would not be hard to out-do even the most prestigious universities these days.

c. All NCO’s are sent for an associates degree at SGT/E-5 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (GI-bill is adapted for this requirement). All E7/SFC’s are sent for a bachelors degree at W2 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to(GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).

I don't see the point in this. Most associates degrees (excluding those in technical areas) in my opinion are not worth much. Unless there is a specific educational objective in any of these (see above) I really believe that exposure to broad array of subject matter must be the goal. (A liberal arts education as it should be.) If this is the case, wouldn't it be more reasonable just to encourage them to gather a certain amount of credits? This would be of far greater benefit. If they are academically capable let them matriculate at a good school. Is the reason you are mentioning associate degrees that they are a shorter term of study that is less expensive and has fewer credits? If this is so, the military should make arrangements with state schools so that they can simply accumulate credit.

d. Require all service members to learn another language and remain proficient in order to stay in (aka a semiannual ‘PT’/height/weight requirement).

I absolutely agree with this. I've been meaning to get around to writing something about this but that never happened. On top of this I would suggest that the DoD create a program where language programs in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc. (the more exotic but useful languages these days) are subsidized in public schools.

If there is enough planning it might be possible to make it so every platoon, or maybe even squad, had someone capable of speaking one of maybe a half dozen or so languages that we feel we are likely to run into.


I should add to my comments above that I am not saying that I do not believe more education would not be useful, rather I question whether there are more useful forms of education/training.


Adam L

[Surferbeetle]

Adam,

I appreciate your assessment:

[*]I have to disagree with you on this. Bachelors degrees used to mean someone was educated (most of the time.) Now most bachelors degrees are only an assurance that they NOW know what they should have known coming out of high school. (Most of the time.) I am not saying that all people are like this, just too many.

'Education creep', by which I mean a high school diploma used to carry far more economic weight than it does today is an issue due to an explosion of knowledge and increased specialization. High School is a broad education. It's my opinion that a degree (in whatever the topic) means one has been exposed to defined body of knowledge and can use analytical tools typical to that discipline to make assessments and decisions. As you rightly point out however quality and motivation of employees varies and the buyer/employer needs to ensure that generalists and specialists are selected and employed appropriately.

....I really question whether it would be better to provide the education in house. It would not be hard to out-do even the most prestigious universities these days.......Is the reason you are mentioning associate degrees that they are a shorter term of study that is less expensive and has fewer credits? If this is so, the military should make arrangements with state schools so that they can simply accumulate credit.

The US Military is to be applauded for providing tuition assistance, block training programs and myriad military training opportunities. However not all of these training events translate into credits at an accredited university and in some cases this is rightly so. The interaction our service members receive at civilian institutions helps them to 'think outside the box'. Our military would benefit from having a program by which all who meet the requirements would get an accredited university education....what an incredible recruiting tool this would be and from a purely management standpoint our ability to fight the 'graduate level' of war would also be increased (we are experiencing mission creep into state department functions but that is for another post). In my opinion associate degrees offer a quick and measurable return on investment as well as building academic confidence in those who undertake the course of study. A university or tech school education, regardless of the level (A.S to PhD), benefits all involved and is a great return on investment for the nation...

I absolutely agree with this. I've been meaning to get around to writing something about this but that never happened. On top of this I would suggest that the DoD create a program where language programs in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc. (the more exotic but useful languages these days) are subsidized in public schools.

In my opinion language skills quantifiably and qualitatively increase ones effectiveness in an area of operations, while helping one to realistically to assess problems and generate solutions appropriate to the locale in which one operates. If a solution falls apart after one leaves it speaks volumes about the effectiveness and sustainability of said solution...I would submit that often times failures such as these are due to a failure to understand the language and thus the culture.

Regards,

Steve

[Adam L]

Surferbeetle,

'Education creep', by which I mean a high school diploma used to carry far more economic weight than it does today is an issue due to an explosion of knowledge and increased specialization. High School is a broad education. It's my opinion that a degree (in whatever the topic) means one has been exposed to defined body of knowledge and can use analytical tools typical to that discipline to make assessments and decisions. As you rightly point out however quality and motivation of employees varies and the buyer/employer needs to ensure that generalists and specialists are selected and employed appropriately.

Yes, a high school diploma does carry less weight, but I believe this has much to do with how poor the graduate's skills are these days. I disagree with your opinion on the “explosion of knowledge an increased specialization.” Although there are certainly areas where this is true, I believe as a general rule it is not. I believe it is appearing to be true mainly because we are acting as if it is so.

A highschool education is a broad education, but that does not mean its focuses are in a few very exact areas. Everyone coming out of high school (actually it should be 10th grade) should be capable of writing a clear and concise business letter using proper grammar and punctuation. Everyone should be able to know math through algebra and trigonometry. Everyone should have a “timeline” of history. Everyone should know the basic fundamentals of chemistry, physics and biology. (This is a lot less material than it sound like. I can elaborate on this later.) On top of these core education requirements there should be some courses that make sure every student knows what a credit card, checking account, etc. is and how to use one.

I would like to be able to agree with your point about degrees. Although I believe this holds true in many areas, almost all sciences (engineering, physics, etc.,) I do not know if that is so anymore. (See my comments about overly concentrated study in my response to Steve Blair.)

I'm a little confuse about which statement you are commenting on with your last sentence.

The US Military is to be applauded for providing tuition assistance, block training programs and myriad military training opportunities. However not all of these training events translate into credits at an accredited university and in some cases this is rightly so. The interaction our service members receive at civilian institutions helps them to 'think outside the box'. Our military would benefit from having a program by which all who meet the requirements would get an accredited university education....what an incredible recruiting tool this would be and from a purely management standpoint our ability to fight the 'graduate level' of war would also be increased (we are experiencing mission creep into state department functions but that is for another post). In my opinion associate degrees offer a quick and measurable return on investment as well as building academic confidence in those who undertake the course of study. A university or tech school education, regardless of the level (A.S to PhD), benefits all involved and is a great return on investment for the nation...

What I was suggesting was not that military training be accepted as college credit. I was saying that the military could set up its own college system, either on its own or in cooperation with state or private schools, that is at least of the same caliber as any of the top schools. I agree that having service members at civilian institution is a good idea, but I believe that matriculating everyone might not be the best idea. If a bachelors degree is actually making that big a difference in that many peoples abilities, something has gone terribly wrong. (as a benefit, I think might be a good idea) Also, as I have stated before, degrees are not what they used to be.

There are some good associates degrees, but many of them outside of technical areas, are simply courses in knowledge and skills that they should have had coming out of high school. Any high school graduate should be capable of being a secretary. Unfortunately this isn't so any more. On the other hand, there are some good programs and I get your point. Still, I am not happy with the way our education system is setting itself up.

I have to say that I am, and have always been, a great proponent of technical schools. After spending a few years in Alberta I am now “THE” proponent of technical schools. (Sort-Of-Off-Subject-Comment - I am sad to say though that too many school systems are getting rid of and/or neglecting their technical feeder programs.)

Sorry for another longkeyboarded (Sorry for this silliness. I couldn't think of the appropriate counterpart to long winded. I very much would like to have said long penned, but I am using a keyboard. Also, telling someone I am long penned might be construed as sexual harassment these days. Longtyped also has an air of bad innuendo. LOL!) response. I just like to type a lot. (sorry for that)

Adam L

(ON second thought "long penned' and 'Long typed' sound like something out of a bad porno movie. Also, by 'bad' I mean good! LOL! )

[selil]

It is always interesting to see people argue about knowledge, academics, and what makes a good learning environment. For as many people there are, well, there are that many learning styles. Attached is a series of slides I would share to give you an idea about knowledge and learning.

The first slide is what most people think of learning and in truth represents what happens with training. Education and training are not corollary or synonymous. They have substantial differences in how they are carried out. Expertise is defined by the breadth of knowledge in the career.

The second slide show the standard configuration of how academics works. If you consider this within the degree/option/discipline of a student the start out with a breadth of knowledge and work ever more stringently into the depth of an area. Expertise is defined by the depth of knowledge in the subject.

The synthesis paradigm is what I refer to as the renaissance man. The individual has a good grasp and depth of knowledge in narrowing their focus to a point. But, their theoretical knowledge grows from that expertise and expands their capability from a variety of other disciplines.

I would suggest that we expect the third option for the military scholar. Go to University systems to get the second option. And reward those who fulfill the first option. This would suggest a disconnect between the requirements and the realities of education and professionalism in the military learning environment.

This is of course a work in progress and part of a series I'm writing on the scholarship of teaching and learning for my BLOG. But, since the server farm where my BLOG is hosted burned up on Saturday you'll have fun kicking the pretty pictures.

[jmm99]

Thought some very basic "know thy adversary" work might be interesting.

For what it is worth.


1. Some Basics

Brian McKenna, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Area of specialization: Medical Anthropology, Environmental Health, and Indians of North America
[minor personal data redacted]

Cancer Terrorists Unmasked
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna11212007.html

Native Resurgence Spurs Hope
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna11242006.html

We All Live in Poletown Now
http://www.ejmagazine.com/2006a/mckenna_extra.html

Brian McKenna, University of Michigan – Dearborn
Environmental Deception and the Battle against Pollution in Greater Lansing Michigan: Lessons from an Applied Anthropologist
http://www.umich.edu/~meldi/PDF/Summ...rch%20Cnfr.pdf

The New Terror
http://www.ejmagazine.com/2005b/05b_.../p_terror.html
Brian McKenna is a medical/environmental anthropologist who teaches at the University of Michigan - Dearborn. He teaches a number of courses there including, “Indians of North America,” and “Doing Anthropology.” He is currently working on a book titled, “We all Live in Company Town USA.”

US: Dow's Knowledge Factory (2004)
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=10008
Brian McKenna is a health and environmental writer with a Ph.D. in anthropology. He has taught at Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. He resides in East Lansing.

How Green is Your Pediatrician? (2003)
http://www.homs.com/pdf/ftguaugsept2003.pdf
Brian McKenna is a medical anthropologist who worked in medical education at Michigan State
University for six years.

Conclusion: McKenna has no expertise to design a program in "military antropology".


2. Brief Comments

1. McKenna's agitprop script was very familiar (think leftist anti-war arguments vs. Vietnam War). Thought he might be a left over Weatherman who ended up in academia; but it seems he is of the second generation.

2. Some "logic" by Peter Rigby, who "was fond of saying, 'Men make revolutions. Anthropologists are men. Therefore anthropologists make revolutions.'" Hmm .. seems Rigby forgot the word "All" in the first sentence. I don't think Bertrand Russell would be proud of him, since Russell kept his mathematical integrity despite his political views.

3. LOL on McK teaching Marxist-Leninism. How to learn that:

- read Marx (what he said, not what others say he said)

- read Lenin (what he said, not what others say he said)

- listen to Radio Moscow & subscribe to Daily Worker (later Daily World).

That to me from an old communist (CPUSA member, lower level so probably not under Cheka's thumb, but who knows).

3. Appears the Master and Margarita was not on McK's reading list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_Margarita

4. Have my own list of movies, but who cares ?

[jmm99]

I hope these are in acceptable format.

[The following are some of his Net tracks: Peter Rigby (below) is cited in Why I Want to Teach Anthropology at the Army War College.]

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna05282008.html

------------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@ga.../msg91896.html

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Brian McKenna
Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:00:30 -0700

-----------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@ga.../msg91908.html

[Same topic; later in day]

-------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@su.../msg29346.html

[PEN-L] The Liberal Virus
Brian McKenna
Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:22:53 -0700

***
... a brief review of Amin today:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sandronsky10062007.html

***
"I joined with the anthros because it offered one of the few social bases to fight relentlessly against capital."

[This is the best one; includes some Peter Rigby discussion]

[quoted data a sample; but relevant to present discussion]

Conclusion: You can easily draw your own.