Whenever I see topics like this I feel like there could be some great discussion, but then I remember that nothing but trouble could come from it. So I post shit like this.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Women in the Marine Corps. Lowering Standards.
- Thread starter The_Pants
- Start date
Can't believe you actually fucked up a famous pop-culture quote.
If professional sports is the Litmus test…go there and do well. Otherwise, the Ready Room/Wardroom is/was what it will always be/always was. I always thought they both beat the locker room…hands down. Just me. Fewer Jacuzzis…but better food.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Not sure how you can call a profession that judges people based on factors beyond their control (namely height) a 'meritocracy.' You can have the best arm in the world but you will never play QB for a pro NFL team if you are under 5'10" and even at that height you'd better be exceptional relative to other NFL caliber QBs.*
* Yes, I'm aware that there HAVE BEEN some NFL QBs under that height, but not in the modern era.
* Yes, I'm aware that there HAVE BEEN some NFL QBs under that height, but not in the modern era.
Intelligence is also beyond one's control.
Accurate and relevant in historical context, I think…(I wasn't directly involved), but dated. Is this still going on?
CNATRA has an entire office dedicated to tracking the data. Dr Hooper runs the show. At risk groups of students (minority, female, married, prior E) have all shown to do statistically (on average) worse than larger, more common groups. These groups were often treated differently during my time in Corpus. Were they given more chances? Yes...Were all of them? No...More than the larger, more common group? Yes
Dr Hooper pulled me aside after an IP brief on this subject and identified my black, female Onwing as a "National Asset." She was the "only one of her kind currently in the pipeline." I won't quote this part but the black, female attrition rate was north of 80% I think.
More often than I care to count, a student would attrite from one primary squadron only to be moved to the other primary squadron...and attrite there too. Others would be given an inordinate number of attempts to pass a phase. I can't remember one being a white male.
How do I know all this? I was a VT OPSO followed by the TW Naval Aviation Production Processing DH where my primary duties were to load students into API and track them through selection after primary. I was the Commodore's assistant for the Primary Production Task Group before they switched it to TW-5. I formally reviewed every single attrition from TW-4 for one year both Primary and Advanced as well as assisted (because of my NAPP/PPTG experience) in preparing most other attrition's paperwork in whatever squadron I was in at the time...I was in all four.
So, are the standards different? IMO, yes, when it suits the needs of the service. I say service because I saw it occur in all services.
Don't forget...diversity is the mission.
Dr Hooper pulled me aside after an IP brief on this subject and identified my black, female Onwing as a "National Asset." She was the "only one of her kind currently in the pipeline." I won't quote this part but the black, female attrition rate was north of 80% I think.
More often than I care to count, a student would attrite from one primary squadron only to be moved to the other primary squadron...and attrite there too. Others would be given an inordinate number of attempts to pass a phase. I can't remember one being a white male.
How do I know all this? I was a VT OPSO followed by the TW Naval Aviation Production Processing DH where my primary duties were to load students into API and track them through selection after primary. I was the Commodore's assistant for the Primary Production Task Group before they switched it to TW-5. I formally reviewed every single attrition from TW-4 for one year both Primary and Advanced as well as assisted (because of my NAPP/PPTG experience) in preparing most other attrition's paperwork in whatever squadron I was in at the time...I was in all four.
So, are the standards different? IMO, yes, when it suits the needs of the service. I say service because I saw it occur in all services.
Don't forget...diversity is the mission.
Flyboyd nailed it. But its not limited to just the early stages of training either. Maybe one day we'll move past all the double standards and quotas BS.
You forgot the double standard for international students. Which from my seat was even worse than what you've highlighted.
Except that they a) pay to be there and b) we don't have to fly with them in the fleet when they get winged. I understand your point and agree, but I've found a crappy Indian (rare) or Italian (not rare) aviator is something I haven't had to deal with operationally.
FlyBoyd, great post. I had my own anecdotal pieces of evidence, but it's interesting to hear it from the NAPP prospective.
So the "larger, more common groups" are non-minority, male, unmarried non-priors, yes? Why don't you just say "white unmarried guys with no prior service"? Assuming that's what you intended...
FIFY…don't you forget it either..but never confuse it with THE mission…which is to train SNAs to the established standards. I'm preaching to the choir, I know...
Disagree... If that's THE mission as you proclaim, then they have, and continue to fail, as double standards still prevail. This thread would not exist if we trained to the established standards, and Kara Hultgreen would still be alive, and VADM Stan Arthur would be a retired CNO!
BzB
Sir…with all due respect for all that you've done and all that you are…it's a different Navy from your and "most" of my time. Times change. I had the late-career opportunity to walk the bridge, I guess, between our version of the "old Navy" and today. It was actually a good bridge.
Let's be honest…OUR VERSION and our perceptions of OUR OLD NAVY would make WWII Naval Aviators cringe and shit twice in their graves. We have no idea…
I admire your loyalty to past leaders you thought to be exceptional. I have my own list. Oddly enough, one on my personal "short list" happens to be the current CMC. He's taking 16 oz. glove jabs and uppercuts to the jaw every single day. I'm not sure "Service Chief" is the job it's ever been cracked up to be.
Double standards? Yeah…I guess. I think that's kinda sorta what defined the NFO community. Second folks to the crash site…
yeahguy
New Member
FlyBoyd, your experience sounds awfully like mine when I was in Corpus (d'uh, you and I worked together). I was on the CNATRA staff and worked with the same characters you mentioned. Dr Hooper was merely parroting his boss: I distinctly recall CNATRA himself saying more than once, to different audiences, that a specific SNA was a "national treasure". Every IP knew exactly who he was talking about. How is that for undue command influence? Not to mention the inherent unfairness of not treating a person as an individual.
If I remember correctly, that "national treasure" ultimately got winged, in the finest tradition of "pass the trash" that we kidded about down there, but didn't actually follow, EXCEPT in very specific instances. I won't delve into how that SNA turned out in the Fleet, but I have very reliable sources...
Concur: diversity is the mission....well, right after SAPR...
I don't hate the players, but I do hate the game...
The point you missed (or I failed to make) lies within your use of commas in your first question. It was a list of groups. Your second question describes the largest group. The group gets smaller as you check off each category you fit into.
Group study and group think is a proven tool. You are usually only comfortable studying with others like you...much like you commiserate with other old dudes here. You get them. They get you. Communication is easier.
Multiple females/minorities/married peeps near each other in training makes their group bigger and they tend to gravitate to each other for help.
The black, female Onwing I had struggled early on. Knowing what I described above, I got way into the weeds with her on study habits. She told me point blank that she wasn't comfortable studying with the other students. She actually was studying with some black students in an advanced squadron since there were no blacks in our squadron. I told her she was setting herself up for failure and I even cited the info I speak about in these posts. I tasked two of my prior Onwings to seek her out and study with her, be as available as possible, etc. She continued to struggle. The dudes I had sent her way said she refused their repeated efforts to help her. She attrited. Included in her paperwork was a statement from me laying out how I tried to help her. She obviously didn't play well with others but she still went to the other squadron. She was a female and black. Two strikes against her according to the historical data.
As a white male, it is easy to find someone like you. If you are uncomfortable with someone, your choice of study partners is nearly limitless but they attrite at nearly 10%. What percentage are saved because they had a group to help them? What if they didn't have that group?
The other part of this we still haven't touched on is this: taking a student that is failing and spending extra time and money to get them up to speed is still quicker and cheaper than starting over with a new widget. With budgets and fleet replacement timing being so thin and the attrition rates being driven so low, there is little room for error (a short term spike in attrition). We train and train and train until some ISIC decides the standards now apply. That decision is made when the data and paperwork can sustain the PC scrutiny of today's services.
Last edited: