"How the US Military Hurts the Poor And Uneducated"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

as and old fart let me tell you something about this new army

these young men and women are
better educater,smarter,healthyer and all around better folks than my generation ever was.

I posted about running into a group of these folks at the Atlanta airport

my hat is off to them
I did not see any with attitudes,sloppy,and not squaired away.

This generation of military folks are AMERICAS greatest generation

I will buy any serving military trooper a beer anytime and be proud I did

old fart OUT

..

Quote

these young men and women are
better educater,smarter,healthyer and all around better folks than my generation ever was.

And so are the kids on the outside, that is, more educated than other kids out there as a whole. Last I read, 26% of all adults have at least a BA/BS. When I was a kid it was probably 10-15%, so society is getting smarter both in the service and in civilian life, but to compare the two I think it's obvious that as an avergage the college kids would test higher when administered the same test than would GI's. Furthermore, the ASVAB is an idiot test, the SAT is a mofo, even tho they are seperate, I think the same person taking both would score in the higher percentile on the ASVAB.

Quote

This generation of military folks are AMERICAS greatest generation

I still say the WWII version was the greatest, but I respect your opinion.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Furthermore, the ASVAB is an idiot test, the SAT is a mofo, even tho they are seperate, I think the same person taking both would score in the higher percentile on the ASVAB.

Due to the nature of percentile scores, I find this highly unlikely.

I will readily admit the SAT is a more difficult test than the ASVAB, but that will not affect the percentile scores, assuming similar groups take both tests.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, the ASVAB is an idiot test, the SAT is a mofo, even tho they are seperate, I think the same person taking both would score in the higher percentile on the ASVAB.

Due to the nature of percentile scores, I find this highly unlikely.

I will readily admit the SAT is a more difficult test than the ASVAB, but that will not affect the percentile scores, assuming similar groups take both tests.

Well, that's the big assumption, isn't it!

Can it be true that only 20% score in the top quintile?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well, that's the big assumption, isn't it!

Not really. When I was in high school, all students had to take the ASVAB before they graduated. Many also took the SAT.

Quote

Can it be true that only 20% score in the top quintile?

Maybe so, but 25% will score in the top fourth.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Anyway, why are you guys trying to convince us that ON AVERAGE the military doesn´t have a lower IQ

Because no one has brought any FACTS to the table to say GI's are not as smart. And the only thing brought up is a sweeping generalization, and personal opinion.

There are dumb people everywhere. I had a college student tell me that blacks were going to lose the right to vote soon.

Plus we have people saying that the military is both dumb and unfit. Again with nothing more than "I think".

That shows a bias against the military.

Soldiers are not smarter than college students, nor are they dumber. They chose different paths. The military has always been a cross section of the people. Since people from all walks of life enlist.

But some are saying that only the dumb enlist, and that is not true. Dumb people go to school, work ect.

Geeze how freaking hard is it to see how thinking only the dumb enlist is a extreme bias?

According to this they are pretty smart

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1244.cfm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Uh.. they are quoteing their OWN statistics... on this page that is linked in your article.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm


And I will see your right wing source and raise you a right wing source...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/10/102539.shtml


The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.


The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.


According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

[TheAnvil 0]

I've recommended you read the budget on numerous occasions - I doubt you'll do so now, but I recommend it nonetheless.

Your assertions about the reasons people join the military really don't comport with reality. You really should speak with current enlistees or hang out with recruiters for a bit if you're going to be making such assertions.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Back when I was in they didn;t do that to any of the troops as much,

OH but you KNOW they do now?

Since you are not in, what makes you the expert on what they do now?

Quote

I guess with a so-called robust economy they have to change their rhetoric

But you keep claiming the economy sucks?!?!?!? So which is it, does it suck or is it robust and they had to change tactics? You can't have both.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

I've recommended you read the budget on numerous occasions - I doubt you'll do so now, but I recommend it nonetheless.

Your assertions about the reasons people join the military really don't comport with reality. You really should speak with current enlistees or hang out with recruiters for a bit if you're going to be making such assertions.

You're just not open-minded enough to understand....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[zoobrothertom 5]

Quote

Quote

Like I said...you really should - once you skim the budget and familiarize yourself with it a bit - spend some time with military recruiters.

You've done nothing, you even avoided my pages of replies. Jebus, we get it, you have no relply.

--------------------------------------------------
Actually, what he "gets" is that you are on a one man rampage and he became tired of reading. BTW, just curious, what was your MOS?

____________________________________
I'm back in the USA!!

[Botellines 0]

He may be a one man rampage because it is very politically UNcorrect to not glorify the U.S army, so he may not be very popular. But there is many people who do not glorify an army (any country´s army) only for the sake of patriotism.

Anyway, what general wants an inteligent or very well formed soldier? Since most jobs in the army do not require to know how to do a Fouhrier Transformed they prefer guys who follow orders and do not take the risk that anyone start do some thinking of their own in the heat of the battle.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He may be a one man rampage because it is very politically UNcorrect to not glorify the U.S army, so he may not be very popular. But there is many people who do not glorify an army (any country´s army) only for the sake of patriotism.

The reason Lucky is getting trounced is because he's talking through his hat. His experience may have been valid at the time, but his recollection of the military ISN'T the way it is now.

Quote

Anyway, what general wants an inteligent or very well formed soldier? Since most jobs in the army do not require to know how to do a Fouhrier Transformed they prefer guys who follow orders and do not take the risk that anyone start do some thinking of their own in the heat of the battle.

And again, you show that you know very little about the military. The "dumb grunt" is a thing of the past. Todays military needs personnel that can think on their feet, not mindless robots that blindly follow the last order given.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

they prefer guys who follow orders and do not take the risk that anyone start do some thinking of their own in the heat of the battle.

Wrong.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

He may be a one man rampage because it is very politically UNcorrect to not glorify the U.S army, so he may not be very popular. But there is many people who do not glorify an army (any country´s army) only for the sake of patriotism.

The reason Lucky is getting trounced is because he's talking through his hat. His experience may have been valid at the time, but his recollection of the military ISN'T the way it is now.

Is this kind of like asserting the Earth is flat because that's how it looks to me?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, the ASVAB is an idiot test, the SAT is a mofo, even tho they are seperate, I think the same person taking both would score in the higher percentile on the ASVAB.

Due to the nature of percentile scores, I find this highly unlikely.

I will readily admit the SAT is a more difficult test than the ASVAB, but that will not affect the percentile scores, assuming similar groups take both tests.

The conclusion I was arriving at was that a person would master the ASVAB before they would master the SAT.

Here's a scenario to explain:

If you put 2 empty jugs out in the rain, one jug was a 1 gallon (represents the ASVAB), the other the 5 gallon (represents the SAT), I think it's obvious the 1 gallon would be more full than the 5 gallon, even tho they would both have the same amount if water in them. So the percentage of water would be way different, even tho the quantity the same.

There would be a proportion that would go something like this:

- person scores 50 percentile on ASVAB, scores 25 percentile on SAT

- person scores 75 percentile on ASVAB, scores 37 percentile on SAT

- person scores 10 percentile on ASVAB, scores 100 percentile on SAT

Then from there, that person would just score higher on the SAT as he/she became smarter.

I just think it's ridiculous to assert that a pool of people who are largely dropouts, or at least a higher rate would be as academically smart as a different pool of people that finished high school and was inspired to attend college.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I just think it's ridiculous to assert that a pool of people who are largely dropouts, or at least a higher rate would be as academically smart as a different pool of people that finished high school and was inspired to attend college.

"A pool of people who largely dropouts"? Are you talking about enlistees? If so, do you have anything to back up that claim?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway, why are you guys trying to convince us that ON AVERAGE the military doesn´t have a lower IQ

Because no one has brought any FACTS to the table to say GI's are not as smart. And the only thing brought up is a sweeping generalization, and personal opinion.

There are dumb people everywhere. I had a college student tell me that blacks were going to lose the right to vote soon.

Plus we have people saying that the military is both dumb and unfit. Again with nothing more than "I think".

That shows a bias against the military.

Soldiers are not smarter than college students, nor are they dumber. They chose different paths. The military has always been a cross section of the people. Since people from all walks of life enlist.

But some are saying that only the dumb enlist, and that is not true. Dumb people go to school, work ect.

Geeze how freaking hard is it to see how thinking only the dumb enlist is a extreme bias?

According to this they are pretty smart

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1244.cfm

Those, "facts" aren't substantiated by anything but its own Rah-Rah nationalism, but here's what they ssay about education:

The previous study noted the significant differ­ence between the national recruit high school grad­uation rate of 98 percent and the national youth graduation rate of 75 percent. This strong distinc­tion continues among the 2004 and 2005 recruits when compared to the national educational attain­ment levels reported by the Census 2004 American Community Survey (ACS).[4]

Let me guess, they are saying that a GED = a high school education.

1) Bahahahaahahahahahah

2) What happened to someone's argument that 100% had to have a high school diploma/GED to enlist?

3) I believe this stat includes officers

What that stat, if even true, reveals is that when kids drop out, some go into the trades or to jail, etc... Whereas others are ruched to get their GED and enlist. I was in the latter group.

In 2004, 92.1 percent of active-duty officer accessions held baccalaureate degrees or higher

I thought they all did.

In previous years, the Department of Defense adhered to a policy of accepting no more than 2 percent of recruits scoring in Category IV on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), the stan­dardized test administered to all recruits to deter­mine eligibility. Category IV indicates that the individual scored between the 21st and 30th percen­tiles. Congress accepted a revised policy of up to 4 percent to allow for flexibility in the current recruit­ing market. Despite three of the four branches accepting limited numbers of Category IV recruits, in November 2005, the media criticized the Army for accepting a high number of recruits from Cate­gory IV.[9]

The articel even admits they have lowered teh standards, but has tried to water it down by blaming the liberal media. Lowering standrds is lowering, regardless of reaction.

By comparison, because the Army does not accept any recruits below the 21st percentile, the nature of AFQT scoring indicates that 20 percent of the comparable civilian population would score below Category IV.


This is purely unsubstantiated claim by them. They provided nothing to substantiate this.

While the active-duty enlisted ranks have fewer college grad­uates than the comparable civilian population, DOD annual updates on population representation indicate that many who join the military are taking advantage of educational opportunities while serv­ing and that many others continue their education after completing their enlistment period.


So much for enlistees being college-educated at a great rate.

This is a military rag, not unlike a leftist rag, so this article is very biased. When it comes to stats, they are objective, but when viewed the way they are here they support biased positions, such as I've pointed out several times here.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm

[rushmc 23]

Oh, and you can substanciate all or your claims then correct?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

Actually, what he "gets" is that you are on a one man rampage and he became tired of reading. BTW, just curious, what was your MOS?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I've recommended you read the budget on numerous occasions - I doubt you'll do so now, but I recommend it nonetheless.

Your assertions about the reasons people join the military really don't comport with reality. You really should speak with current enlistees or hang out with recruiters for a bit if you're going to be making such assertions.

I love your fireside, "just listen to me and I'll show you the way" chat sort of infering if I don't believe you I'm stupid.

I listen to data interpreted in an objective fashion. The fact that the Army has poked the bottom of the lower food chain from 2% to 4% doesn't mean that the average intelect of an Army enlistee is lower, but it heads that way. The upper end could, hypothetically be higher and offset that lowering of the bottom. This is how I objectively approach data, apparently you do not do that. The burden shifts to you when the data indicated a lwered standard and you have not satisfied that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Back when I was in they didn;t do that to any of the troops as much,

OH but you KNOW they do now?

Since you are not in, what makes you the expert on what they do now?

Quote

I guess with a so-called robust economy they have to change their rhetoric

But you keep claiming the economy sucks?!?!?!? So which is it, does it suck or is it robust and they had to change tactics? You can't have both.

Quote

OH but you KNOW they do now?

Since you are not in, what makes you the expert on what they do now?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The military is one of those things that really doesn't evolve that much. But I appreciate, as you constantly do, post things exactly in context.

Quote

But you keep claiming the economy sucks?!?!?!? So which is it, does it suck or is it robust and they had to change tactics? You can't have both.

Are you serious? When I wrote, "so-called" that means I am asserting doubt of the robust nature of the economy. The point is, GI's live in a bubble, spoon-fed BS by their superiors and the military in general, so now that the indicator is that the economy is doing well for everyone, the perception might be that getting out is feasable so the military has to court you rather than scare you; get it?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like I said...you really should - once you skim the budget and familiarize yourself with it a bit - spend some time with military recruiters.

You've done nothing, you even avoided my pages of replies. Jebus, we get it, you have no relply.

--------------------------------------------------
Actually, what he "gets" is that you are on a one man rampage and he became tired of reading. BTW, just curious, what was your MOS?

Not on epersona had addressed all the articles I posted. They're getting dired of ducking and running from them I guess.

Just curious, why does my AFSC / MOS matter? Going to build another Ad Hominem argument? I wasn't a cook or MP, but I wasn't in a huge glory job either. I'll tell you later, but it doesn't matter for now with this argument.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

He may be a one man rampage because it is very politically UNcorrect to not glorify the U.S army, so he may not be very popular. But there is many people who do not glorify an army (any country´s army) only for the sake of patriotism.

Anyway, what general wants an inteligent or very well formed soldier? Since most jobs in the army do not require to know how to do a Fouhrier Transformed they prefer guys who follow orders and do not take the risk that anyone start do some thinking of their own in the heat of the battle.

Quote

Anyway, what general wants an inteligent or very well formed soldier?

EXACTLY my point. Conscientious descent comes from this. They want em proud, brave and dumb. I can remember the first day of basic where we were all assembled in our street clothes. We were then ready to go up to the dorm room and the TI said ok, pick up your bags...... now put em down.....[ABOUT 1/2 DID SO] ... I said to put the motherfuckers down........ [MOST DID, BUT THERE WAS ALWAYS THAT GUY(NOT ME!)]..... so he gets up in the face of that guy and humiliates him..... pick em up, put em down, pick em up, put em down, pick em up, put em down, pick em up, put em down. Until they make you realize not to question idiocy, just comply.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

He may be a one man rampage because it is very politically UNcorrect to not glorify the U.S army, so he may not be very popular. But there is many people who do not glorify an army (any country´s army) only for the sake of patriotism.

The reason Lucky is getting trounced is because he's talking through his hat. His experience may have been valid at the time, but his recollection of the military ISN'T the way it is now.

Quote

Anyway, what general wants an inteligent or very well formed soldier? Since most jobs in the army do not require to know how to do a Fouhrier Transformed they prefer guys who follow orders and do not take the risk that anyone start do some thinking of their own in the heat of the battle.

And again, you show that you know very little about the military. The "dumb grunt" is a thing of the past. Todays military needs personnel that can think on their feet, not mindless robots that blindly follow the last order given.

Quote

The reason Lucky is getting trounced is because he's talking through his hat. His experience may have been valid at the time, but his recollection of the military ISN'T the way it is now.

Trounced? Please. WHat is teh reason people have cut-n-run from my citations?

Quote

And again, you show that you know very little about the military. The "dumb grunt" is a thing of the past. Todays military needs personnel that can think on their feet, not mindless robots that blindly follow the last order given.

I think all of today's kids are smarter than we were at the same age, just as we were smarter than our parents.

[warpedskydiver 0]

What were you a less intelligent version of Gomer Pyle?

WTF? sounds as if you were alwys in the constant company of idiots