Concur. That's why we've tried to enable attendance for non-Ranger Q'd SF Officers. It really is one of the better small unit leadership training experiences available in today's Army. (It'll probably stay that way at least until they waive the "balls" requirements. :rolleyes:) Not all of our leaders start with an Infantry or even a Combat Arms background.

This forum is replete with QPs that have been around for a while. That's why I joined it (it makes for useful discussion).

This is an old thread, but I thought I would add my 2 cents... Ranger School is excellent training for a PFC, young Specialist or butter bar, maybe a Buck Sergeant coming from a soft skill. Ranger School doesnt teach you anything any NCO worth his salt doesnt already know in the way of tactics. It teaches you about yourself. Any SF qualified person attending Ranger School is doing it for one reason and one reason only. It is for rapport building and mentoring. You can't tell that young admiring soldier looking up at the sun glinting off your unit crest affixed to your green beret that HIS first step in advancement in the Combat Arms is to attend Ranger School if you don't have that vibrant Black and Gold beacon on your own shoulder. Let's face it. Some really great soldiers go to Selection... and fail. That doesn't mean they aren't outstanding Infantry/Armor/Air Defense. It just means they weren't meant to be one of the chosen few, or at least not quite yet. Get your short tab. Not because some Rangerette will look at you starry eyed in the bar and say "Are you a REAL Ranger?" but because a young soldier, looking up at you starry eyed thinks you are the epitome of the Combat Soldier and you need to point him down a path he can follow until he is prepared to do his own map reconnaissance and blaze his own trail for his career.

Rapport building and mentoring had nothing to do with why I went after the SFQC... ...

Thats the key, understanding the intent of the school and the end user these days means O's with no ground combat or tactical experience. Way back the schools intent was too harden inexperienced infantry leaders in lieu of war in a simulated combat environment under conditions non combat MOS's ever experience. Cold, Wet and Hungry. The school is not about teaching or learning it is about the tab that says you have the commitment to suck up hardship and lead or follow when needed. Pre-Ranger and unit prep are the learning phase.
If a soldier comes from a tactical background like Infantry and has alot of experience as a tactically and technically proficient soldier he doesn't need the school. Old Sarge or young Sarge that knows how to lead and can get performance out of his soldiers ven when they don't want to do anything does not need the training experience. If the soldier struggles at leadership and is passive he needs the school to toughen him up. SUT these days is about teaching and learning tactics and Cadre set the teaching methodology example. Don't be mislead you will be carrying 100 lbs + and patrolling and doing the exact same tactics but sucking isn't our intent it comes with the territory.
Thought I would jump on to your response because you nailed the purpose of the school right on. So many don't understand how many Ranger Q'd come to SUT and struggle this includes former Sapper and Ranger Instructors alike. We are looking for the proficiency of the tactical and technical skills and thinking under pressure we want the smart Ranger not the strong one.