Posted on 12/18/2005 9:50:43 AM PST by 68skylark
Washington — The Army met its recruiting goal for November by again accepting a high percentage of recruits who scored in the lowest category on the military's aptitude tests, Pentagon officials said Thursday, raising renewed concerns that the quality of the all-volunteer force will suffer.
The Army exceeded its 5,600 recruit goal by 256 for November, while the Army Reserve brought in 1,454 recruits, exceeding its target by 112. To do so, they accepted a “double digit” percentage of recruits who scored between 16 and 30 out of a possible 99 on the military's aptitude test, said officials who requested anonymity.
Last month, The Baltimore Sun reported that the Army reached its recruiting goals in October by accepting 12 percent from these low scorers, known as Category IV recruits. The Army may accept no more than 4 percent annually, according to Defense Department rules. While officials last month disclosed the percentage accepted in October, Thursday they refused to reveal the November figure.
“We are not giving out (aptitude test) categories during the course of the year,” said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
Still, Army officials continue to say that at the end of the recruiting year, next Sept. 30, the total percentage of Category IV soldiers will be no more than 4 percent. For more than a decade, the Army kept its Category IV soldiers to 2 percent of its recruitment pool. But last year, faced with a difficult recruiting climate because of the war in Iraq, Army Secretary Francis Harvey decided to double the number of Category IV soldiers.
“We will be at 4 percent at the end of the fiscal year, that's what matters,” said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for Army personnel.
The increasing reliance on the lowest-scoring recruits is troubling to former officers who fear that the quality of the force will erode. They say that the increasingly high-tech Army needs even more qualified soldiers. And with troops facing more complex duties involving nation building and peacekeeping duties, good judgment is more important.
“We are putting more responsibility on the shoulders of privates, probably more than any time in our history,” said retired Lt. Col. Charles Krohn, a Vietnam War veteran who later worked as a speechwriter for the head of Army personnel in the 1980's. “You don't want (lowest-scoring recruits) wandering into a mosque in Baghdad.”
The Army already had brought in 4 percent from Category IV — or roughly 2,900 of its 73,000 recruits — for the 2005 recruiting year, which ended Sept. 30. In 2004, the Army accepted just 440 soldiers from the lowest category, or about 0.6 percent of 70,000 recruits. Despite the increase in lowest-scoring recruits, the Army was still about 7,000 recruits short of its 80,000 recruit goal for 2005.
At the same time, the Army is beginning to see an erosion in the percentage of soldiers re-enlisting, with some defense analysts saying the service is beginning to see the ripple effects of repeated, yearlong deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
In October the active-duty Army achieved 91 percent of its retention goal while in November it got 94 percent, meaning for the two months it lost about 1,000 soldiers. In 2005, the Army achieved a 108 percent retention figure, re-enlisting 69,512 soldiers, although its goal was 64,162.
My point is that there is always a lowest category of acceptiblity. If their lowest category can't get the job done, they need to raise their standards and not accept people that were previously in that low category anymore.
If the lowest category of acceptibility gets the job done, then there's not a problem.
The score is based on percentile. A score of 16 means your in the 16 percentile of those who took the test, or 84 percent of the people score higher than you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Congratulations on passing basic mathematics.
I suppose when someone mentions killer whales you're the kind of guy who has to make sure that everyone knows that they aren't really whales. Thanks, Cliffy.
It's an idiom, or maybe not technically an idiom, just a saying. So thank you so much for pointing out that you know the difference between mean, median and mode. We're all impressed now.
Jeez.
Definately sounds Old Timey.
Don't know about today, but USAF was always a bit different in that they would write a contract for a career field instead of a specific MOS as did the Army and Navy.
And to write a contract for an MOS requires that there be qualifying scores and an opening in training school.
Please excuse me if I take the opposite view
I was in and worked with draft-related enlistees-- I was in the USAF, the #1 choice to avoid Army duty while the draft was on.
With little excption, most of the folks who fell into the "I joined to avoid being drafted" mind set were focused on 1) how little they could get away with 2) how soon they could get out.
I was glad they ended the draft, and will fight any effort to ever starting it up again - short of global war.
As for test results, it is more an indicator of basic education, not ability.
In the beginning...was the Mod Army. And it sucked. But they needed bodies and joining then was not a respected idea.
There were a lot of non grads and criminals in those days, not the cream of the crop.
But going from an 'all volunteer' army to a 'recruited' army (yes, there is a difference) means that nowadays the average recruit is more highly educated, more intelligent, and healthier than the average American.
I wish the Army could avoid these recruits, like the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard (and the Marines, too, for the most part).
My father joined the Navy in about 1949.
His aptitude test said he should be a Jeep mechanic.
I have seen him try to remove a lug-nut with a pair of sissors. He has had two ceiling fans fall and one short out the first time it received power.
They made him a storekeeper at White Sands and kept him away from the motor pool.
Please ping me.
Thanks,
Eaker
If you can explain the IFF system using a 6th grade reading level -- something that's probably difficult to do, but not impossible -- I'm sure that our soldiers in the field had an easier time understanding what you wrote and using the system correctly. When the troops are cold and wet and dirty and short on sleep, anything you can do to make their job easier is a great idea.
The best manuals that the Army ever had we actually comic book style. It was a brilliant idea since no one really enjoys reading tech manuals or updates.
PM Magazine had a crusty old motor sergeant and voluptuous Connie Rodd as two mainstays.
We always had copies and it was a great way to get the troops to read the updates and changes.
But, of course, someone had to report it as something done because we were too dumb to read.
It was just a way to make a dull topic readable.
Well there is a big difference between explaining how something works and writing a set of instructions on how to use something.
Well pay more. And get rid of the ridiculous policy of taxing the salaries of our Military as they protect while living so poor they need food stamps
You need to take a look at the new pay scales. W increased all phases of pay massively during his first few years.
...or put another way- The Pentagon validates America's public school system despite the resistance by many leftist public education authorities to allow military recruiters on campus in order to "steal away" their future brainwashed trusts for the purposes of becoming IED fodder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.