Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a coworker who was in the military in the ‘00s, and apparently it was so hard to recruit people then that they had people with IQs as low as the 60s, which is indicative of either an intellectual disability or a severe learning disorder.
That never happened. The IQ requirement was never that low. Certainly not in the '00s.
Sometimes I wonder in good times,how smart are our military guys?
I know one guy who can retire in his 30s,he has a choice of going to Westpoint to further his career or drop out and become a civilian.
He decides to return to be a civilian,the only job he can find is a warehouse security guard
Unless something's changed, I've never heard of any member in their 30's, getting appointed to a service academy. There's often pathways into the officer ranks at that age, but academies are usually reserved for kids out of high school, and in some cases high performing first term enlistees.
Civilian opportunities depend on what job skills you gained in the military. Your friend might have limitations that he's not telling you about.
One thing to remember, is that the military isn't one large monolithic group, where everyone has the same IQ and motivation. This is especially true in the enlisted ranks, where you have a wide range of occupations, that cover the spectrum of blue and white collar jobs in the civilian world.
Unless something's changed, I've never heard of any member in their 30's, getting appointed to a service academy. There's often pathways into the officer ranks at that age, but academies are usually reserved for kids out of high school, and in some cases high performing first term enlistees.
Nothing's changed. 17 to 23 years at the start of the academic year. 10 USC 7446.
Originally Posted by mojo101 View Post
Sometimes I wonder in good times,how smart are our military guys?
I know one guy who can retire in his 30s,he has a choice of going to Westpoint to further his career or drop out and become a civilian.
He decides to return to be a civilian,the only job he can find is a warehouse security guard
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753
Unless something's changed, I've never heard of any member in their 30's, getting appointed to a service academy. There's often pathways into the officer ranks at that age, but academies are usually reserved for kids out of high school, and in some cases high performing first term enlistees.
Civilian opportunities depend on what job skills you gained in the military. Your friend might have limitations that he's not telling you about.
One thing to remember, is that the military isn't one large monolithic group, where everyone has the same IQ and motivation. This is especially true in the enlisted ranks, where you have a wide range of occupations, that cover the spectrum of blue and white collar jobs in the civilian world.
I think that's a misreading of the post, although mojo101 hasn't responded.
I read that post as being applicable to a first-term soldier who could have gone for 20 and later retired in his 30s or had an opportunity to go to West Point...but instead of either of those options, he just finished his first enlistment and wound up as a security guard. So, his intelligence is questionable.
I am not up on what is required in K-12 for physical activity.......but is that part of our problem, too? Did we do away with required PE & recess for our general population in schools?
Schools have no requirements for PE today. My local high school used to have a mile run requirement. The PE teachers got so much flak from parents and the principal supported the parents. The requirement disappeared. Today the kids play badminton, and if they don't want to, they can sit out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
It's not so much physical activity as it is eating habits and the quality of the food supply.
When I was a kid in the 1950s and 60s, there were no vending machines in schools, no snack machines, no soda machines, no eating in the halls, no eating in the classrooms. We ate breakfast at home and had nothing but water until lunch, then nothing but water again until dinner. Maybe we got a small snack--fruit if anything--if we begged hard enough, but our mothers were set on making sure we didn't spoil our appetites for dinner. After dinner, mom cleaned up the kitchen, and the kitchen was closed for the night. Mothers didn't keep cupboards of snacks back in those days.
These days, many kids are eating every waking hour. Many of them have eaten twice before they get to school, and snack through the school day (remember a calorie laden drink is a snack), eat again on the way home, and continue to eat until they go to bed. And they've been eating that way since they were toddlers.
Moreover, the snacks they're having are highly processed. They're coming in with shot metabolisms, already with insulin resistance, high blood pressure, and pre-diabetes. You can't just exercise your way out of a bad diet.
You are exactly correct, none of that is an exaggeration. Today kids bring those Starbucks Frappuccino drinks, 32 oz. sodas, and bags of potato chips to class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
Making a blanket statement that the kids of today aren’t fit to serve is just not correct.
23% of young people ages 20-39 are fit to serve. That’s roughly 20 million people right there who are fit for duty and that already excludes the 77% drug users, criminals, and obese people.
Out of those 20 million people, only 9% have the inclination to serve, so that still leaves 1.8 million people who are both fit to serve and have the inclination to serve.
That 1.8 million peer group is who we need to focus on as to why they want no part of serving right now. Obama and Trump were both wildly popular with the troops and I don’t believe either administration had much trouble recruiting outside of a rare, isolated down year.
So what has changed?
1) The recent debacle in Afghanistan has certainly hurt recruiting. How can it not? One of the selling points of the US military used to be that it is the best in the world. It still is, but what is the perception right now? A “Saigon esque” retreat and evacuation debacle is what is in many civilian’s minds right now. Who wants to have their name associated with that garbage?
2) Not trying to turn this into a political fight, because past presidents of both administrations have been wonderful Commander in Chiefs. I’ll straight say it to anyone, Obama was a good president as far as inspiring the military. So this is not meant to be political, but the current Commander in Chief is not fit for duty. He is not a leader, he inspires nobody. We all know this to be true, no matter which political team you are on.
3). To the argument that young people don’t care about civilian leadership in DC, I disagree. They all know who Biden is and they’ve heard him mumble and stammer and slur his words on a weekly basis. But you want to know who these kids really listen to? They listen to their parents. A kid tells his family I’m thinking of joining up. The family doesn’t say how proud they’d be of the kid like they did in my day. I’ll bet that many tell the kid point blank, why would you want to serve, and potentially put your life on the line, for an inept administration that doesn’t share our values? From what I can tell, the values of this administration are LGBT proliferation and bringing CRT to the masses.
So how can this be fixed?
1) Leadership change at the top,
2) Ditching anything that even resembles CRT
3) Minimizing LGBT. I’ve got no problem with gay people serving, but does it need to be shoved down everyone’s throat? Do we need a gay pride month filled with events each and everyday on base for a full month?
Some interesting points! I don't know where you came up with the "23% of young people ages 20-39 are fit to serve," but I agree. This minority of today's young people are in much better shape and more intelligent than any previous generation. This country should have no problem filling the voluntary military with elite, highly motivated intelligent people.
Afghanistan may have hurt recruiting but remember that this country went to an all volunteer military at the end of Vietnam. Vietnam was much more of a debacle than Afghanistan ever was.
There is a minority of young people who are drawn to the military life. The political leadership does not affect this attitude. What they want to know is that our government is looking out for them with decent pay, benefits including health care while they are in the service and lifetime veterans benefits when they leave. We shouldn't have enlistees receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance to survive. If the political leadership fixes this, this country will meet its recruiting goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
Many claim General Milley subverted President Trump’s authority. But as long as it favors your ideology, it’s all ok, right?
General Milley took the high moral and legal ground, it is not a matter of ideology.
I had a coworker who was in the military in the ‘00s, and apparently it was so hard to recruit people then that they had people with IQs as low as the 60s, which is indicative of either an intellectual disability or a severe learning disorder. Unfortunately it was nearly impossible to train that group of people on the tasks the military requires. I think currently it is more around 80, which is at least low average intelligence. That has certainly reduced the number of qualified applicants. I think only about 10% of the population has an IQ of 80 or below, but when you add in other diagnoses like ADHD, allergies, asthma, migraines, and obesity, it’s easy to see how so many people are disqualified.
I never heard of military requiring an IQ test for entry. I remember the ASVAB back in my day, which is similiar but has to many differences to actually provide an IQ score equivalent.
One thing I learned over these years is that some of the dumbest people I worked with were highly intelligent and vice versa. In my past businesses when I was hiring, I always placed the DD-214 in higher regard than many college diplomas.
As I understand, it simply an out-of-shape, coddled youth that is hurting the recruiting.
I never heard of military requiring an IQ test for entry. I remember the ASVAB back in my day, which is similiar but has to many differences to actually provide an IQ score equivalent.
One thing I learned over these years is that some of the dumbest people I worked with were highly intelligent and vice versa. In my past businesses when I was hiring, I always placed the DD-214 in higher regard than many college diplomas.
As I understand, it simply an out-of-shape, coddled youth that is hurting the recruiting.
Excellent assertion. It's not ideology, if my nephews are an indicator.
I have three nephews who are military-age or nearly so. Their reasons for not serving have nothing to do with fitness, they are all physically fit, in fact more so than their peers. Their reasons for eschewing military service:
Oldest is 27. He's following in his uncle's footsteps, sort of, as he is a pilot. Athlete in HS and college. And has had almost everything done for him by doting parents so he'd never have to fail at anything. It was devastating to him when he failed his first airline interview, but now he's in the right seat of an E190 regional jet. He chose that lifestyle because, in his words, "it's a fast and easy way to make lots of money". No, he never asked an airline pilot who's been laid off a couple times and has to live in hotels 12-15 days a month if it's really easy. I asked him about military service, to be a pilot like I was, and his response was "Hell, no, too hard for what they pay you."
Middle starts college in a few weeks. No aspirations whatsoever to join the military. No desire to serve, and he too has had a lot done for him by doting parents. He too wants a fast track to six figures right out of college.
Youngest is still in HS and his parents are pushing him to go into the military. But he isn't like the other two, is way more altruistic and may just do it. But probably won't because, he is, in a word, underachieving.
It's called service for a reason, and a lot of kids these days are more about what's-in-it-for-me.
Originally Posted by mojo101 View Post
Sometimes I wonder in good times,how smart are our military guys?
I know one guy who can retire in his 30s,he has a choice of going to Westpoint to further his career or drop out and become a civilian.
He decides to return to be a civilian,the only job he can find is a warehouse security guard
I think that's a misreading of the post, although mojo101 hasn't responded.
I read that post as being applicable to a first-term soldier who could have gone for 20 and later retired in his 30s or had an opportunity to go to West Point...but instead of either of those options, he just finished his first enlistment and wound up as a security guard. So, his intelligence is questionable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
