<p>“Opie, in 2003 data was compiled. Of new recruits, 98% had a high school education or higher, while only 75% of non-military 18-24 year olds did”</p>
<p>could that be because you had to be a HS graduate to enlist? That’s what I mean by fun with numbers. Let’s rephrase it then “of all eligible enlistment canidates, would the answer still be the same?” I’d say no. Because counting those who would not qualify skews it to support their arguement. I would like to see of all “eligible to enlist” how that works out then. No one produces stats that disprove the point they are making, even if the method of measurement, doesn’t really qualify. I hope you understand where I’m coming from. </p>
<p>Look, I appreicate what you’re and several of the kids I coached over the years are doing as well. I just wish those responsible for your well being hold you with the same regard your family does. Yes, sometimes things have to be done, but those things should stand up at the end of the day as the right things to do.</p>
<p>Question Opie, if it is a requirement to be a high school graduate as you say, then how come the number is not 100%??</p>
<p>The biggest issue I have with the Selective Service Act at this point is that it only requires males to register. If we’re so much about equality these days, then females should be required to register for the same things males are required to register for, right?</p>
<p>Hops scout, I can answer both of your questions. </p>
<p>1) The number of recruits with hs diplomas may be less than 100% because some folks may enlist before they actually graduate from hs (maybe in april or may), but they cannot enter service until after they graduate. When they do this, they can get scheduled for specialized training classes that fill up early, or they can guarantee themselves certain training dates, etc. </p>
<p>2) If you feel so strongly that women should register for selective service in the same manner as men do, you should bring this up with your political leaders. This is a political issue, not a military issue. However, think long and hard about the effects this may have on pregnant women, newborn babies, young mothers and young families, etc. etc. While it is hard to think about drafting young fathers and shipping them off to war, are we prepared as a nation to take young mothers away from their newborn babies and ship them off to war, too? Is this good for American families? It is a difficult but very realistic question.</p>
<p>kluge,
The auto-trigger of a draft is an interesting idea. How would the current reserve service be handled? I have a family member who participates in the reserve, and has been collecting benefits and points toward retirement in peacetime for years. How would this system be justified if everytime the US enters a conflict involving us of forces, we draft people from outside of the system anyway? </p>
<p>We certainly could save $ by not having the reserve system, though.</p>
<p>hops, I think newz answered it for you. no?</p>
<p>Again I appreicate those who serve. I don’t apprieciate those who manipulate data to influence. Not a shot at the poster who brought it in, but simply a person must look at how data is mined to come to the conclusion they want. </p>
<p>Of the “eligible” military canidates, I would bet the ones that remain civilian are a bit brighter (college students) However, there is a segment of exceptional students that are brought into the military academies that if reviewed would be shown to be smarter than the civilian college students. Why? the requirements are harder to meet for the academies then the general requirements for civilian colleges. </p>
<p>That’s also just one facet of an individual. The data was presented as smarter than, that does not mean a better person than.</p>
<p>The biggest issue I have with the Selective Service Act at this point is that it only requires males to register. If we’re so much about equality these days, then females should be required to register for the same things males are required to register for, right?</p>
<p>I agree- and I have two daughters.
However- I would ( when I am King) require that organizations like Americorps- Freedom Corps & Peace Corps- be part of the same umbrella as the miltary- that all high school graduates be required to spend time in one of the above.
Their choice. Although they would be charged with less time if they opted for military- they would also have to be released, even if we are at war- if they chose the military and had completed their time.
They would also have 10 years to complete their social service- so the Peace Corps, with its requirement of a college degree, would still be an option & students choosing military could also complete their degrees if they chose.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, if we had the policy I’m suggesting if a draft were triggered it would mean a national commitment to a major struggle, not a neocon fantasy of a quick, easy war with a jackpot waiting at the end. I imagine there’d be plenty of work for the reservists; if nothing else, training and leading the draftees.</p>
<p>I guess one lesson learned from the antics of the neocons is that if you have a tool, people will want to use it. Our highly mobile, technological armed forces backed by a reserve force of trained and ready part-timers seems to have been just too enticing for Rumsfeld, et al. to leave on the shelf.</p>
<p>Thanks. I hadn’t thought about high school students who sign up. That makes sense:) I was just making the point that if it’s required, then it should be 100%. Those high school students can undergo some training but cannot be deployed, correct?</p>
<p>I think there would have to be exceptions to the draft for females just like there are for males. What would they be? I don’t know.</p>
<p>Is this good for American families? It is a difficult but very realistic question.</p>
<p>mmmya, this is the primary consideration with the military- like in the earlier example I posted re the 26 year old who volunteered to go to Iraq after 9/11- * is in the reserves* and has just been ordered to get ready for his ** 5th** tour of duty.
He would * like* to start a family, but he doesn’t feel that would be responsible, since he doesn’t know if he would be coming back.</p>
<p>“Of the “eligible” military candidates, I would bet the ones that remain civilian are a bit brighter (college students) However, there is a segment of exceptional students that are brought into the military academies that if reviewed would be shown to be smarter than the civilian college students. Why? the requirements are harder to meet for the academies then the general requirements for civilian colleges.”</p>
<p>Opie, aren’t you making the invalid assumption that all young people who are capable of being in college are
a) able to fund a college education
b) ready to attend college right out of high school
c) wanting to go to college right out of high school?</p>
<p>I believe that your assertion that the “brightest” are in college rather than the military is a reflection of your own beliefs. You must believe that the military is a lesser choice than college. You have a right to believe that. I, however, as the spouse of a retired enlisted sailor who completed his BS while serving, know otherwise. The ability and genius of those who serve is at least as great as those who choose college. As a teacher in a school on a military base, I can tell you that those in the military value education and are constantly taking classes while working full time. I know enlisted soldiers, airmen and sailors and marines who have earned Masters Degrees. </p>
<p>Maybe those who go to college right out of high school are “smarter” in that they often get to pursue their education without also pursuing a full-time job and having to deploy, may receive their education at an institution where they can party every weekend and do drugs if they feel like it, and have the freedom to grow their hair long or wear whatever they please. That may well be a measure of intelligence. My son is very ready to defend your “child’s” right to do all of the above. </p>
<p>As to the kind words about the academies, thank you. Isn’t it strange, though, that the child of one of these “less bright” enlisted people would end up being at a school which you say puts him into an elite population?</p>
<p>You bet your boots my midshipman is bright, tenacious, and a leader. He gets it from his dad. :)</p>
<p>Sorry, Opie, you made a good point about those statistics I posted, but I could not locate data similar to what you were asking for.</p>
<p>While those who go straight to college may be “brighter” than others, let’s not forget that that does not cover the vast majority of the population. Also, for most enlistees, their training in support roles will be equivalent to an associate’s degree within a few years. I know that some use their experience to get associate’s degrees very quickly.</p>
<p>The hs student does not actually enter military service or training until after he or she graduates high school. He/she just signs the enlistment contract a little early. There are people who know during senior year that they wish to go into the military soon after they graduate. But they can not be scheduled for their military schooling until after they sign the enlistment contract. Many training dates for summer and early fall, particularly for the highly specialized occupations, may already be filled by summer. So the person signs the contract early to assure himself the classes and dates that he wants.</p>
<p>“Opie, aren’t you making the invalid assumption that all young people who are capable of being in college are
a) able to fund a college education
b) ready to attend college right out of high school
c) wanting to go to college right out of high school?”</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>“Isn’t it strange that the child of one of these “less bright” enlisted people would end up being at a school which you say puts him into an elite population?”</p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>"may receive their education at an institution where they can party every weekend and do drugs if they feel like it, and have the freedom to grow their hair long or wear whatever they please. That may well be a measure of intelligence. "</p>
<p>OK.</p>
<p>"My son is very ready to defend your “child’s” right to do all of the above. "</p>
<p>Then you might agree with me that you EXPECT those who direct your child, have the same concern for his well being that you do. No? Isn’t your son a value asset to this country that must not be wasted needlessly? </p>
<p>MOMof1, </p>
<p>I really am not some hippy dad you seem to think me to be, rather I am someone who EXPECTS those who command to be responsible for their decisions. If the decision is to go to war, then balls in… we haven’t done that because someone thinks volunteers are expendable. Unfortunately, even though you may dislike me, IT ain’t me.</p>
<p>Newzbugg, there are high school students who go to basic training (at least in the Army and Army National Guard) during the summer between junior and senior years of high school. They also train with NG unit during monthly drill too.</p>
<p>“While those who go straight to college may be “brighter” than others”</p>
<p>Here’s the thing about labels or the statements that start this… they rarely address the whole person and rarely define true talent and ability. I don’t think there’s this vast cayon between those who do and who don’t. What I was objecting to, is an implication that there is some giant difference through the use of statistics. My point simply is that depending on the parameters set, I can prove or disprove the arguement.</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’ve ever framed a house or done construction… ever hear the term “measure twice… cut once.”? Apply that concept to any data you see, hear or read… and I mean that with the points of view you agree with and disagree with. Sometimes your spot on, other times you learn something new.</p>
<p>I’ve watched (read) this thread go down the path of investigating/debating the relative intelligence of military vs. non-military college-age people. That’s where it’s been going the past few pages at least. And the developing concensus certainly was not in the “both are equally intelligent” direction. Please, by all means, don’t duck out of the path you’ve all been going…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think one would have a hard time providing actual data, not just anecdotal evidence, in favor of equally intelligent college/military people, with the exception of the service academies.</p>
<p>But I am all eyes, so bring it on (as they say) ;)</p>
<p>Hop, You are right about the “split option” enlistees who go to basic training before their senior year, then they are ready to go away to their occupational training as soon as they graduate. </p>
<p>They are absolutely non-deployable until they graduate high school, fully complete their training and turn eighteen years of age. They would be part of the percent who enlist without having the high school diploma yet. </p>
<p>The advantage is they earn money from reserve drills while they are still in high school, plus it allows them to start their advance training right away after graduation. Also, the clock starts on their military obligation from the time they raise their hand to enlist. It’s a decent option for those who want it.</p>
That’s what I mean by fun with numbers. Let’s rephrase it then “of all eligible enlistment canidates, would the answer still be the same?” I’d say no. Because counting those who would not qualify skews it to support their arguement. I would like to see of all “eligible to enlist” how that works out then. No one produces stats that disprove the point they are making, even if the method of measurement, doesn’t really qualify. I hope you understand where I’m coming from. </p>