Posted on 12/18/2005 11:16:10 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
What follows is the lede from a Baltimore Sun article today (Sunday) about Army recruitment as reprinted in The Day in New London, Connecticut. It demonstrates, again, the truth of Mark Twain’s dictum, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
"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.
"The article does note, later on, '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.' "
Source: http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=127EAF9A-F3BB-4D46-93F7-AD1D0D7C8F1A
What can students of statistics as used in the mainstream media, conclude from this article? There are two errors here. Both are errors of omission. Both are fatal to the article’s premise.
The first is that these are statistics from a single month. The article doesn’t say how this number of recruits compares to a full year of Army recruiting. Give or take a percentage point, it would be roughly 8.3% (1/12th) of the year’s total. Those who follow unemployment statistics, which are reported monthly, know that they go up and down for a variety of reasons. The important statistic is not whether the number has bumped up or down in a given month, but where it stands for the year to date, and for the whole year at its end.
The second point of omission can be deduced from the article, though it would undercut the article’s thesis to state it – so the reporter does not state it. How do the Army recruits compare with the intelligence of the young (mostly) male population from which its volunteers come?
The bottom Category IV from which the Army deliberately takes a limited percentage, is NOT the bottom category among those tested. More importantly, how does this compare to the average ability of all young men in American society?
The Army policy is not to take any young men who do not have their high school diploma or GED (General Equivalency Diploma). The only exception to this rule are a limited number of recruits who pass appropriate exams and, with help, can complete their GED before going into basic training on “delayed entry.” The reporter could have gotten this information with a single click on the Internet. I did. Here’s the source for anyone interested in the complete story:
Source: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1115623.php
Since dropout rates from high schools range as high as 50%, depending on jurisdiction, if this fact had been included, it would be clear that the Army is still recruiting young men who are more able intellectually than their general age group.
So, the conclusion is clear. This article used an accurate statistic (from a single month) to slam the Army. And by leaving out the context, it gives the impression that the Army volunteers are less intelligent than their peers, rather than more so, which is the truth.
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
John / Billybob
Source:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1115623.php
Thanks for the comments. It's gotten to the point that I just dismiss articles like this. The MSM has become so dishonest, it's practically a waste of time to do their work for them.
I trust our military leaders. They're doing a heck of a job in Iraq and this just pisses the left off so bad, they can't contain themselves. These leaky articles are the result.
Thanks for taking the time to address the issue.
I had a college course named "how to lie with statistics."
That's why even when I'm confronted with some pretty good arguements on some issues, I don't always concede the point in question. Some numbers and or theories look pretty good on the face of it, but there's always other data out there...
Whooops, guess that makes their point doesnt it!
I retired from the Navy. During my career I was a recruiter, a boot camp drill instructor, with my primary job being a machinist in charge of steam powered engine rooms.
As a recruiter I was limited in the number of Cat IV's that I could enlist - which was too bad because I had to bypass several very good candidates.
As a drill instructor some of the best recruits I had were from the lower aptitude groups. Granted they had to work harder on the book work, but overall they grasped the hands on stuff much quicker.
Finally in all my years running enginerooms I preferred to have those "hands on" guys. They were one with the machines - they loved getting dirty, taking things apart and putting them together. They didn't over analyze stuff.
Just like in life, everyone has a place. Even in the military. The smart ones did the paperwork and read the manuals, the not so smart ones did the grunt work. With proper leadership everyone's contribution becomes equal.
Too bad the MSM doesn't understand that. I guess they look down on those with less mental ability and fail to see the potential in everyone.
Thanks for your comments of experience.
There are all kinds of abilities, and being so smart that you make yourself sick is way, way over rated.
The anti-Americanism of the press is moving past the ludicrous and into the pathological.
Sure seems like it...
Be warned: mega hurl alert. This guy is arguing that the reputation of the press is suffering because it is not sufficiently challenging the Bush White House and not acting to protect the 'public interest' against Chimpy McBushHitler.
I can only hope they follow his advice, and that a new press emerges from the wreckage.
No surprise there, they hate the Army. Anyone familiar with the sophisticated equipment now in use, would quite easily realize the depth and breadth of knowledge among today's troops. They would run intellectual circles aroung your average youngster in the states, struggling to make a living.
I agree with your statements. There's a lot of statistics I distrust in general. If it's put out by a political group with an agenda, that is especially the case for me, I don't care if it's right or left.
I agree with your statements. There's a lot of statistics I distrust in general. If it's put out by a political group with an agenda, that is especially the case for me, I don't care if it's right or left.
This is excellent work. Statistics are a powerful tool and great power requires great responsibility. I'd like to see the latest statistics on the decline of responsible journalism... My independent review of a random MSM sample shows a strong bias against the same authority that insures freedom of the press. Ironic isn’t it?
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.