| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2006 09:09:58 PM |
| Object: |
GI Schmo How low can Army recruiters go? |
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/?nav=ais
war stories Military analysis.
GI Schmo
How low can Army recruiters go?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:06 PM ET
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S.
Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with
repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to
lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against
high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who
score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group,
known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small
numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is
also a Category V—those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They
have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and,
presumably, always will be.)
The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is
starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates
that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter.
Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do
theirs worse.
Until just last year, the Army had no trouble attracting recruits and
therefore no need to dip into the dregs. As late as 2004, fully 92
percent of new Army recruits had graduated high school and just 0.6
percent scored Category IV on the military aptitude test.
Then came the spiraling casualties in Iraq, the diminishing popularity
of the war itself, and the subsequent crisis in recruitment.
In response to the tightening trends, on Sept. 20, 2005, the Defense
Department released DoD Instruction 1145.01, which allows 4 percent of
each year's recruits to be Category IV applicants—up from the 2 percent
limit that had been in place since the mid-1980s. Even so, in October,
the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that the floodgates had
to be opened; 12 percent of that month's active-duty recruits were
Category IV. November was another disastrous month; Army officials won't
even say how many Cat IV applicants they took in, except to acknowledge
that the percentage was in "double digits."
(These officials insist that they will stay within the 4 percent limit
for the entire fiscal year, which runs from October 2005 through
September 2006. But given the extremely high percentage of Cat IVs
recruited in the fiscal year's first two months, this pledge may be
impossible to keep. For the math on this point, click here.)
Some may wonder: So what? Can't someone who scores low on an aptitude
test, even very low, go on to become a fine, competent soldier,
especially after going through boot camp and training? No question. Some
college drop-outs also end up doing very well in business and other
professions. But in general, in the military no less than in the
civilian world, the norm turns out to be otherwise.
In a RAND Corp. report commissioned by the office of the secretary of
defense and published in 2005, military analyst Jennifer Cavanagh
reviewed a spate of recent statistical studies on the various factors
that determine military performance—experience, training, aptitude, and
so forth—and concluded that aptitude is key. A force "made up of
personnel with high AFQT [armed forces aptitude test] scores," Cavanagh
writes, "contributes to a more effective and accurate team performance."
The evidence is overwhelming. Take tank gunners. You wouldn't think
intelligence would have much effect on the ability to shoot straight,
but apparently it does. Replacing a gunner who'd scored Category IV on
the aptitude test (ranking in the 10-30 percentile) with one who'd
scored Category IIIA (50-64 percentile) improved the chances of hitting
targets by 34 percent. (For more on the meaning of the test scores,
click here.)
In another study cited by the RAND report, 84 three-man teams from the
Army's active-duty signal battalions were given the task of making a
communications system operational. Teams consisting of Category IIIA
personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those consisting of
Category IIIB (who'd ranked in the 31-49 percentile on the aptitude
test) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IV personnel had only
a 29 percent chance.
The same study of signal battalions took soldiers who had just taken
advanced individual training courses and asked them to troubleshoot a
faulty piece of communications gear. They passed if they were able to
identify at least two technical problems. Smarts trumped training. Among
those who had scored Category I on the aptitude test (in the 93-99
percentile), 97 percent passed. Among those who'd scored Category II (in
the 65-92 percentile), 78 percent passed. Category IIIA: 60 percent
passed. Category IIIB: 43 percent passed. Category IV: a mere 25 percent
passed.
The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the
better the performance in the field. This is true for individual
soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one
high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of
success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier boosts
its chance of failure by a similar margin).
Smarter also turns out to be cheaper. One study examined how many
Patriot missiles various Army air-defense units had to fire in order to
destroy 10 targets. Units with Category I personnel had to fire 20
missiles. Those with Category II had to fire 21 missiles. Category IIIA:
22. Category IIIB: 23. Category IV: 24 missiles. In other words, to
perform the same task, Category IV units chewed up 20 percent more
hardware than Category I units. For this particular task, since each
Patriot missile costs about $2 million, they also chewed up $8 million
more of the Army's procurement budget.
Some perspective here: Each year the Army recruits 80,000 new
troops—which amount to 16 percent of its 500,000 active-duty soldiers.
Even if 12 percent of recruits were Category IV, not just for October
but for the entire coming year, they would swell the ranks of Cat IV
soldiers overall by just 1.9 percent (0.12 x 0.16 = .0192).
Then again, viewed from another angle, this would double the Army's
least desirable soldiers. These are the soldiers that the Army has long
shut out of its ranks; that it is now recruiting avidly, out of sheer
desperation; and that—according to the military's own studies—seriously
degrade the competence of every unit they end up joining. No, things
haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, but they're headed in that
direction. Every Army officer knows this. And that's why many of them
want the United States to get out of Iraq.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached
at .
©2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: GI Schmo How low can Army recruiters go? |
09 Jan 2006 09:52:03 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/?nav=ais
war stories Military analysis.
GI Schmo
How low can Army recruiters go?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:06 PM ET
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S.
Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with
repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to
lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against
high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who
score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test-a group,
known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small
numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is
also a Category V-those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They
have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and,
presumably, always will be.)
The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is
starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates
that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter.
Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do
theirs worse.
Hmm, you're saying that people of lesser intelligence want to join the
Army?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: GI Schmo How low can Army recruiters go? |
10 Jan 2006 09:41:24 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2006 19:52:03 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/?nav=ais
war stories Military analysis.
GI Schmo
How low can Army recruiters go?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:06 PM ET
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S.
Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with
repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to
lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against
high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who
score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test-a group,
known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small
numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is
also a Category V-those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They
have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and,
presumably, always will be.)
The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is
starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates
that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter.
Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do
theirs worse.
Hmm, you're saying that people of lesser intelligence want to join the
Army?
I haven't said anything. I posted an article.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "erikc" |
|
| Title: Re: GI Schmo How low can Army recruiters go? |
10 Jan 2006 02:23:01 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2006 19:52:03 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/?nav=ais
war stories Military analysis.
GI Schmo
How low can Army recruiters go?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:06 PM ET
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S.
Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with
repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to
lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against
high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who
score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test-a group,
known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small
numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is
also a Category V-those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They
have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and,
presumably, always will be.)
The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is
starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates
that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter.
Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do
theirs worse.
Hmm, you're saying that people of lesser intelligence want to join the
Army?
Considering that most of them will most likely be christers, this would be a
good way of culling the herd.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
