Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's actually not the case for the volunteer military -- as least not until the past 3-4 years when they have had to substantially lower their standards to meet recruiting goals.
Interestingly enough, and for similar reasons, the Army has also significantly raised its age limits for new recruits (up to 41, I think) -- although they won't put the old folks in combat units. This offers a wonderful opportunity for the many frustrated patriots on this Board and elsewhere to let actions speak louder than words.l
In the period I'm most familiar with -- the early to mid 1990s -- the educational background and proficiency of the "average" recruit exceeded that of the population as a whole. i.e. HS diploma was mandatory, a notable percentage had at least some college courses, and the Army offered substantial additional training and education (with some remedial aspect) in the specialized training for each MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) that every enlisted soldier attends immediately after basic training. The last part, at least, is still true. I believe the HS diploma is no longer mandatory.
S_A_M
Bad mistake to make.
|
Thank you. Despite opinion from certain quarters that the military is comprised of failures or people just too poor and therefore stupid to git any good larnin' in 'em, it's not the case. And for the record, poor people do occasionally make something of themselves and are as capable of growing and developing intellectually as anyone else. Jesus. The military can and has offered exactly what the ads promise - growth, education and other skills - to its recruits. I don't care if Kerry meant it or not with his stupid "joke" (thumbs-up for the vetting process on that one...par for the course for that guy), it's telling that those who tend most to be anti-military-action are those who seem to assume that military are, by and large, poor, dumb idiots.
