-
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
The Call To Serve
- Thread starter scoober78
- Start date
Post hoc ergo propter hoc just means "After this, therefore because of this." Basically, that because something follows another that it is caused by the first one...problem is, it's not true always, or even usually.
All I'm saying is that the average military enlistee is more educated than his age peer because they have to be. It's required for enlistment. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the military "attracts" more educated people. I think it's pretty universally agreed that the trend in education of the average soldier, sailor and airman is upward. What isn't clear is whether we "attract" more educated enlistees or simply require them.
Frankly, I don't know enough statistically speaking, to assess whether the conclusion of the report is true or not...it certainly could be, but their argument and evidence is not convincing.
OK, then help me out. I am dead serious. Break it down for me because while I know about causation, correlation and the like I don't see scoober's point re education. I don't even know what causation we are talking about. Where is causation. I don't think they are arguing any causation. And so what if the military requires a HSD. The claim is that as a group, the 18-24 year old cohort, military 18-24 year olds will have a higher % of HSD. No claim for any causation was made. They didn't argue that military enlistment caused 18-24 year olds to become better educated than their civilian cohort. Please commence edgeucating
Edit: Ok, I got what you mean, but I don't think they argued that the military was "attracting" more educated folks. It was a snap shot of who was bearing the burdon of the post 9/11 wars. Yours is a good question, but I don't remember them addressing it. I'll have to go back and look at it.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Your post is informative, but what is the measure of "quality" the survey is using?
I'm finding that a good portion of Sailors who enlist with degrees do so because they couldn't make it in a competitive job market. The same traits that make them undesirable to private employers also cause them to struggle to get their bearings in their first few years of service, even when their only responsibility is essentially to do what they did in college - study and take oral/written exams until they are qualified.
I think it is clear the measure of quality in the paper is education and asvab score. Your observations of sailors is instructive and I have no way of knowing how accurate your observations are. It must be accepted and stand on its own. I am certain what you have observed is true of some sailors, even some officers. But let me offer other observations based on experience with more sailors than you (stipulating that most of the sample were in aviation) and many years in the recruiting game. Some people enlist, even with degrees, not because they can't make it in the civilian job market, but because what they want to do in the military is only represented in enlisted ranks. What Pat Tillman wanted out of the Army could only be had as an infantry soldier, a Ranger at that. I know the senior recruiter that forwarded his app and that of his brother. They rejected officer program options. Some guys want to be air traffic controllers. Many want to be MPs, MAs or Air Police. Some want to be on subs in the worst way and wouldn't qualify for nuke officer even though they may have a 3.7 GPA, but that it is in History. Just because a guy has graduated and had a civilian job doesn't mean he is damaged goods or otherwise can't make it in the civ sector. I have heard many applicants claim their experience in the job market was not fulfilling, or they didn't like the field their degree prepared them for. Enlisting is a way to reinvent themselves. I wouldn't just assume a guy that enlists from the civ work force or that has a degree couldn't make it on the outside or will not make a "quality" sailor.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I agree with you, and I'm not saying that everyone who enlists with a college degree does so because they can't find employment elsewhere. But you also have to figure that with two ground wars occurring and no Naval war in the near future, the motivation for the average person enlisting in the Army is going to be significantly different than someone who enlists in the Navy. If the guy really wanted to be in the thick of things, he'd be looking at the Army or USMC.
The recent wave of new enlisted guys showing up to the boat has a much different demographic than people might expect, which is what the statistics you posted support ... most of them are in their low-mid 20s and have some college or a college degree. More and more people tend to be enlisting for the technical job experience which employers want their applicants to have these days, rather than to pay for college in a few years. You'd think that they'd all start off hot because of their education, but in the small sample size I've experienced it can't be used as an accurate prediction of good (or bad) performance in the Navy. But it does seem like for every college educated Sailor who gets his dolphins in < 8 months (normally takes 12) and seeks to take on department/command level collateral duties, there are 2 who take much longer. Again, small sample size, but the bottom line is that it's not a consistent indicator of performance. That's the issue I have with calling someone with higher education a "better quality" servicemember.
It's also why I take issue with private employers who want a college degree on the resume just because it's en vogue, and not because the applicant studied anything that remotely pertains to the job description. It doesn't really indicate anything regarding how the person is going to perform in the workplace.
The recent wave of new enlisted guys showing up to the boat has a much different demographic than people might expect, which is what the statistics you posted support ... most of them are in their low-mid 20s and have some college or a college degree. More and more people tend to be enlisting for the technical job experience which employers want their applicants to have these days, rather than to pay for college in a few years. You'd think that they'd all start off hot because of their education, but in the small sample size I've experienced it can't be used as an accurate prediction of good (or bad) performance in the Navy. But it does seem like for every college educated Sailor who gets his dolphins in < 8 months (normally takes 12) and seeks to take on department/command level collateral duties, there are 2 who take much longer. Again, small sample size, but the bottom line is that it's not a consistent indicator of performance. That's the issue I have with calling someone with higher education a "better quality" servicemember.
It's also why I take issue with private employers who want a college degree on the resume just because it's en vogue, and not because the applicant studied anything that remotely pertains to the job description. It doesn't really indicate anything regarding how the person is going to perform in the workplace.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I know a lot of people who were much more disciplined in attendance in high school than college. There are a high portion of people, again mostly non-technical/professional degrees, who can pass college by pulling all-nighters 6 times a year to cram for tests and writing an occassional paper. Some of those people still pull 3.7+ GPAs because they have a good short term memory, but it demonstrates the opposite of any quality of someone I'd want to hire. A degree in itself shows nothing without some kind of work, research, or internship experience to go with it that demonstrates you didn't waste all your free time drinking beer and getting high.
Yes, high school... where attendance is mandatory...
So basically, You wouldn't hire any of us to be Naval Aviators. I don't know how much shit I've brain dumped since flight school. I guess I must be a realllllllly crappy aviator because I can't remember how to shoot an approach on a failed card ADF or a localizer backcourse....oh and that Ship/SAR flight? It's really setting me back in the light attack community, not a day goes by that I wish I could remeber how to do a ELVA approach to a small boy in some shitdick little puddle in the Middle east.
All I did during flight school was drink beer too.
Does anyone have personal examples from their sailors? I never asked specifically how much their families made, but I talked with the guys enough in my division to know that they were, on average, solidly middle class. I had a few that grew up dirt poor and one guy had a really wealthy family and enlisted to spite his family. Plus, quite a few had degrees or were finishing degrees. Sure, the sample size was about 50 but it's a good example I think.
So, comparing that to the friends I know from high school, I think it's safe to say that the sailors in my division, as a whole, were doing better financially and education wise.
So, comparing that to the friends I know from high school, I think it's safe to say that the sailors in my division, as a whole, were doing better financially and education wise.
Going back to maybe what motivated scoober's original post, I remember something I read a couple years ago. I am sorry that I can't remember where or who wrote it, but the jest of the piece was that more than the question of whether our military was made up of predominately privileged or underprivileged, the question was culture and values. As I recall, the general circumstance was that the military (slightly more enlisted side than officer) is overly represented by folks from the south, and more religious than less. The military also was over represented by folks ( officer more than enlisted) of a more political conservative persuasion. Over represented were small towns. More military members (slightly more enlisted than officer IIR) came from medium sizes cities to rural areas verses large cities. Military members voted at a higher rate than the public at large and contributed to charity at a higher rate. I know, those last two are pushed by the military but it was also mentioned that most recruits came from families where voting was valued and charitable giving was the norm. Since I can't provide attribution just consider it a personal observation for the sake of conversation. With that in mind, now consider what that illustrates about our military. And separately, just who who bears the burden. Does it really make a difference if a kid came from a poor family or not? It is an all volunteer military. It isn't like there is a draft and the privileged can buy their way out making it inherently unfair. Economic history and even class says much less about our military than culture and values. You have poor people that value education, give to a church and vote in every election, and some that don't. What says more about the type of person they are, their checking account balance or that they were a girl scout, walked twice as far as necessary so they could attend a challenging college prep magnet school and was on student council? Like much of the race debate, in my opinion the whole economic class issue in this case is overstated.
Very well said. What's between your shirt will always matter more than what's in your pocket. Some bemoan the military as "the only opportunity" for young adults in some neighborhoods or use it as a tool to attack our defense spending...(another issue for another time...) To that I reply, "Well let me tell you what a kick ass opportunity it is."
Drilling back to where I started with this...the only caveat I would provide to the above is this...We are talking (Air Force, skilled rates in the Navy etc...) about folks who are generally in the upper tiers (Half maybe? No evidence, just a guess) of the education strata of overall, all service enlistees. As Brett pointed out, the Marine Corps and especially the Army generally have lower education standards. When engaged in a war of the sort we are now, those two branches pay the vast majority of the human cost. As a result, we disproportionately lose the less educated. If, as I suggested initially, we are drawing deep, as opposed to wide, we are creating something of a permanent "sacrificial class". Not making a judgement as to the right or wrong of this...just observing and saying that it's worth talking about.