Lowering the Bar - Again

dK notes that Army recruiters now have a larger pool of potential soldiers, due to the Army's decision to eliminate the requirement for new recruits to have either a high school degree or a GED to join up. This is directly due to the Army's inability to meet its fiscal year recruiting goals. I had to read the Army Time's article twice to figure out what was going on here.

If an individual has been out of high school for at least six months, can pass a physical exam and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, he or she may be eligible for help getting a GED.

The program allows recruiters to enlist a high school dropout, according to S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. But the enlistee must have the GED before shipping off to basic training. The Army will pay for individuals to attend a course to prepare for the GED test and will cover the cost of taking the GED exam.

Before attending the GED course on the Army’s tab, the person must enlist into the Army’s delayed entry program, Smith said.

So you sign the recruiting papers, don't leave for the military right away, take the Army's crash course on how to get through a GED, pass the exam, and then you're off to that bright new future. But the Army's still going to hold firm on the position that not more than ten percent of their new recruits will have a GED vice a high school diploma. What a slippery slope.

I don't remember when the Army started requiring a GED/high school diploma for recruiting purposes. Probably started in the good old Clinton days (kidding, I don't know that for a fact). I do remember, as a 2LT at Ft Benning in 1986, being assigned as the battalion education officer. I had to track the enlisted troops' education status and work toward getting those without a diploma into the GED courses, increasing the percentage of the battalion's troops with GEDs or high school diplomas. I also assisted in getting troops into early college prep courses (this is what many battalion chemos did, because the threat of chem-bio warfare in the 1980s was not viewed very seriously. We also did the Unit Status Reports, HHC arms room inspections, running firing ranges, TOC night shift, etc. But I digress).

The Army had the right intentions then - a smarter troop is a better qualified and prepared troop. They were already in the unit, and the education was free, so why not get the GED? I'm not as convinced that the Army's heart is in the right place with this new policy. It's like someone's tossing incentives out there to increase their numbers while still desperately trying to retain some shred of dignity in maintaining standards. I hope the leadership is watching the recruiters to ensure someone isn't sliding cheat sheets in with the recruits to help grease the skids and increase their monthly quotas.

I keep hearing that reenlistment numbers are very high and that's a good thing. The Army leadership is never going to admit that the war in Iraq is hurting recruitments, but I wonder how much longer they're going to blame their recruiting slump on low unemployment, the media, and parents unwilling to sacrifice their kids?

Comments

[EagleSpeak]

Back in 1972, I handled the GED program for the ship I was serving in. What I learned from that job was probably more than the sailors I was assisting. I learned, first, that the American education system was not compatible with everyone's learning style and that a lot of very sharp individuals were abused out of regular high schools by a very inflexible approach to education. Secondly, I learned that at some level some of these young men had been abandoned by teachers and passed on without learning how to read at a level above 3rd grade. I learned that with a little tutoring and some immediate reward for improving themselves some of these high school drop outs, while not becoming literary geniuses, did blossom into reading machines even if their tastes would not have satisfied a professor teaching Chaucer and Shakespeare. Finally, I learned that most of these young men were well aware of the problems they faced in not having a HS diploma and were very motivated to get the equivalent. And, as you note, like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, once they got their "diploma" they became better sailors and citizens because, among other reasons, they had proof they were as "good as anybody else."

I don't want the army to become a welfare agency, but the selective admission of otherwise intelligent men and women who lack a high school diploma is not a bad thing.

And if it helps them meet their recruiting quota, so be it (and since they are frontloading the program with a "get a GED or else" requirement, it seems pretty "win-win" to me).

[J.]

No, you're absolutely right. I shot off my emotions irresponsibly there at the end. Another reader emailed me and noted this: "The clear, uncontroverted argument by the Army -- which, as I recall, everybody wound up agreeing with -- was that the high school diploma was important NOT as an indicator of academic achievement, but rather as an indicator that the individual could operate successfully in a structured environment (which is why there is a sub-limit on the proportion who they'll take with a GED rather than a conventional diploma)."

I should have noted that the more important indicator of troop quality is how many ASVAB level 4 troops are being accepted vice the more higher level troops, rather than this GED issue. If the Army doesn't change the 10 percent quota issue, then they really aren't changing policy on troop quality.

[dK]

I disagree. There was a reason that the Army stopped accepting non-GED high drop outs (or flunk outs). I don't have the stats to back up an argument, but an NCO on my blog posted her view, which makes sense to me on why this is probably a bad idea.

To J.'s larger point, I agree that looking at whether the CAT 4 level of acceptance has increased (these are those who essentially flunk the ASVAB). These may be high school grads, GED recipients, or that latter category. As Eaglespeak points out, the diploma doesn't measure aptitude or intelligence, but rather, sometimes just the ability to stick with a four year program. However, the ASVAB measures aptitude and skills in certain areas. Those immediately below the standard are CAT 4, among whom a tiny percentage (which varies depending on enlistment demands) is allowed to enlist. It's separate from the other issue (HS/GED/neither) but probably a more important indicator of potential.