Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
Do you have any case studies which discuss costs in terms of time and money for the two models that you would be willing to provide links for?
While I am painfully aware that your parameters have been used by the Army (the other services do so as well but not to as great an extent) for years to justify marginal training that produces a barely acceptable product -- enlisted and officer -- who is sent to a unit which, quality of unit dependent may or may not better prepare him or her for the job. The good folks will also better educate and train themselves (both are required) while the lesser people will not exert the effort to do so (but will continue to be tolerated instead of being encouraged to seek another career). I think two points are in order:

- Individuals and units should not have to do that to the extent they now do.

- Is time/money the proper arbiter or should the arbiters be competence and proficiency to better enable the future survival of self and subordinates to insure successful mission accomplishment (as opposed to a flawed job that has excessive costs in many terms).

I'm quite conversant with the time/cost aspect having managed an Army multi-million buck budget for a number of years and thus learning how the system really works (not!). I also know that our use of those two inhibitors is a smokescreen. We continue to tolerate poor training because we are unwilling -- not unable; unwilling -- to spend what is required and to take the time needed not because we can't afford either, we can -- but simply because we've never done it that way and change is difficult. Every objection Sam lists has been used by many to me over the years -- and, as Sam says, everyone is hogwash.