Now I'm really going to stir things up: an SF-only thread
 

This thread is only for SF, SF Candidates and others with sufficient knowledge to comment intelligently on the topic:

Have SF standards been lowered unwisely to meet the demand for more SF soldiers?

To quote TR:

Any questions? :)

No cheating, crip.

I would comment on your participation in the thread, but I am not allowed to do so. ;)

Cheating...how's that cheating?

I have sufficient knowledge of The Reaper's POV on this issue. Are you suggesting the comment I quoted is not an intelligent one as it pertains to the substance of your query?

standards
 

I can't really comment on the standards due to the fact that I am only a SF candidate. I can however comment on the type of people that are currently joining the SF pipeline. All are highly motivated, well educated (the 5 I have been in close contact with are all college graduates), and are in great shape to be non military and are currently training hard before going to basic just to have a chance at making it through SFAS. I think the 18X programs which was put in place to increase the amount of new and qualified recruits is serving its purpose. As for the standards, they can only be made so difficult before noone will pass and because the people in charge of the standards and training are SF officers I doubt they would ever allow standards to be dropped just to fill the slots. I think new programs such as 18X will be implemented in the future to increase the pool from which soldiers will be selected to fill quotas and not do so by the lowering of standards.

SO

You copied that from another board. I am not eligible for the thread, so stop asking for my irrelevant and baseless views, if any.

Once upon a time...
 

about 10 years ago, there were a bunch of us bitching, whining and complaining because we thought standards had been lowered by lowering the GT score requirement and no longer haveing the mandatory pass swin test. Survival had been removed from the Q as had a number of things we had done that "Cherries" would not be required to do.
As instructors, we bitched to everyone who would listen that "our generation" was going to ruin the reputation of the SF soldier because we were graduating too many who didn't deserve it and standards where transparent to the powers that made the decisions...
Know what?
We may have been partially correct, BUT, those who "slid through" were weeded out when they eventualyy got to the teams. And though they didn't "go through" what we did for training...they went through OTHER STUFF instead.
It is not a matter of lowering the standard, but updating the requirements to reflect the changing face of the Army and the role that Special Operations plays in it.
The Q of today isn't any EASIER, it's just different.

My .02

Eagle

Re: Now I'm really going to stir things up: an SF-only thread
 

NO.

I don't think so. I was one of the first of the "baby SF" in 1963. The pre-requisite before was E-5 over four years service. I was E-2 over three (months) when I was reqruited. The academics and physical challenges probably weren't as difficult as they are today. We got our best training from our Teams.

SF is in the heart not in or on the head.

I don't think training standards are relaxed as such. There are more than enough satisfactory candidates out there. As in other occupations, "cutoff scores" are sometimes raised and lowered to adjust manpower levels.

There was a time when there were more in training than there were total active SF when I entered.

This is a story which can give one a complex if he listens: :"This unit was a lot better just before you arrived!!!"

SF performed admirably in Vietnam though the majority had less than five years service. I see the same admirable performance today. Sometimes saying that standards have dropped is a way of patting one's self on the back and having a "superiority complex".

Negative. It was copied from this board, and from a forum you have access to.

I can only speak for myself, but from what I have been through with my medical waiver I would say no, they have not been lowered. The standards have not been lowered with regards to the granting of medical waivers. The approving authority rests with the Surgeon General for both the Army and National Guard and at the time of waiver submittal neither knows what the applicant is attempting to enlist for. A MOS can only be contracted for after the waiver is returned approved.

At this moment there is actually a push to not allow individuals who have received medical waivers from participating in IET BAC and thereby not allowing soldiers with such waivers from enlisting with Abn, Option-40, or 18-X/Rep-63 contracts. Albeit it appears this move is not motivated by tightening the standards, but because the BAC barracks are being refurbished and there not being enough room to house anyone who might become a recycle due to injury.

Based on the time I was active in SF (1975 - 1983); and the SF soldiers I know and work with today at Ft. Campbell (5th Group), I would say the following is true:

1 - Physical fitness is improved. They are larger, stronger, with more brute strength, and a little better endurance. Maybe it is improved nutrition and training. I was unaware that the swim requirement had been lifted, it certainly doesn't seem to be an issue within the 5th Group, who are a group of sanddwellers.

2 - Mastery of equipment/weapons is equal to the time I remember. That may be an improvement, since the equipment is improved and more complex (crypto-TACSAT rather than shortwave IMC coder/bursters); but may also reflect that actual operation has been simplified to be more user friendly. Same comment applies to medics: just as good, with more meds and gear than in my time.

3 - General Intelligence is equal to my time. No increase/decrease in GT/IQ that I notice. It is still important to have a base of knowledge, but even more important is the ability to proceed from the known to the unknown within that firm basis of knowledge, and accurately predict the outcome of unknown events. That can be tested, but not taught. I think the SF school system does a good job of recruiting, selecting, and qualifying graduates.

4 - Knowledge of history and world affairs is diminished. SF is strategic, not tactical, and it is important for SF soldiers in a UW (not DA) mission to have a long term sense of the effect of their actions ten years out, not just ten days or ten months out.

Long answer to a short question: Standards have changed, but I won't say they have been reduced. The overall quality of the force hasn't suffered.

Re: Now I'm really going to stir things up: an SF-only thread
 

RL,

We could sit here and discuss this topic for months, argue, split hairs and what not. So instead I’ll answer your question with this;

Ask the taliban and the al-qaida if they think a change affecting our standards has in any way denigrated our ability to lay waste to both of their organizations?

I’ll bet you 1000 dead terrorists I know what their answer would be.

Team Sergeant

From what I have been told, the Q is in better shape than ever.

And like the Team Sergeant said, the proof's in the pudding.

That should be "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." The phrase goes back to the 1600s and was used by former Marine Miguel de Cervantes in that book he wrote about Don Quixote. Somewhere along the line, it started getting misquoted.

I have nothing of substance to add to this thread, I suppose.

I suppose...:D

I wonder, has the attrition rate at SFAS changed any in the last 20 years. The success rate in my class was 27%. Were they typically lower? Of that 27% (I figured these numbers myself from the total number of the class versus how many got "selected". I'm told that about 16% of an original SFAS class actually make Q Course graduation (I'm not sure of that figure since I don't have any "real" numbers to back it up - if anyone does, I'd appreciate if you let me know as it has been a topic of interest to me).

If the numbers have been steady, I'd say that the standards have not changed. But, I cannot answer this question from personal experience since I think that I would need to have, at least , 10 years in the teams to have a good perspective on SF over time.

Having been the commander of the training group I can tell you that this comment constanty arises. Sort of like the "winter ranger" vice "summer ranger" argument. The "Q" course is not conducted in a vacuum, nor is it put together on some ad hoc basis. It is conducted to support developed doctrine as modified by requirements from the all the Special Forces Groups. That is not to say that some ideas and attempts fail to meet the common sense test, but on a whole those running the effort realize that we are not producing corn flakes. You also must realize that the course produces folks that have enough information and skill to get their foot in the door and that training and development never stops with a great deal done by the units to which they are assigned. Also, remember, that those in the school house have a vested interest in producing the best qualified soldier they can because at one time or another most will go back to the groups and have to work with/for those that they produced.

Great post COL.

Welcome aboard!

Welcome aboard Sir.

Literally, Sir.

A squared-away NCO that gave me my SF briefing, and subsequently recruited me more than two years ago is now my "Team Sergeant". As I came through the door into the team room for the first time, he was like "Sir ... remember me?"

Sir,

Welcome on. Good post.

Eagle

Sir,
Welcome aboard!!!

My point of view is from 1985 to present as an instructor with SWC. While not constant, a break from 89 to 94, and not an instructor in basic skills, I can say I do not agree wiht the opinions expressed by the others.

edited again... maybe I didn't misread LR1947's post.

back to my original post now,

":munchin"

LR, send me a PM and tell me about your opinion. That's the kind of experienced perspective I'd appreciate to know about.

Bas

(Or he could post it here so all can benefit . . .) :)

RL, other than stirring the pot or trolling, I see no reason for your starting this thread.

Since you asked nicely, I went through the SFQC in 1984 (with "SF Babies"), and can really only speak to the years since then.

I was a cadre member in SWCS '89-'91, and came back again in '01. I see every SFAS and SFQC class at multiple points.

My observation is that the students and instructors are much better than when I went through the course, or when I was in SWCS before. There are a number of related issues and positions which I will not get into here, but the following is my thumbnail assessment.

The physical standards are higher, the mental standards are currently higher, the psych standards are definitely higher, and there is more of an effort to eliminate those with poor morals or ethics from the course. The only negatives I can say that I see are that the students are much more likely to be "city boys" with little or no field time and sometimes seem to lack the maturity that I would like to see in our students. Having said that, I watched the surge to man 1st SFGA when it was reactivated in 1984 and 3rd SFGA in 1990. Frankly, I am not sure that I could meet the standard today myself, but they would have to carry me off, since I do not believe in quitting.

We were running undermanned and with ghost teams off and on throughout the years. We did this with a 780,000 man force to recuit and man four Groups from.

We are now attempting to man five Groups from a 485,000 man force. To do this and maintain the same "standards" is very difficult, if not impossible.

To improve SF manning, you can work on a number of variables, most of which have secondary effects. One is to decrease losses through retirements, resignations/ETS, combat losses, or involuntary separations. Another is to increase accessions, either by putting more people into the pipeline, or graduating a higher percentage of those who enter. You can reduce requirements by changing force structure to reflect fewer qualified personnel on ODAs, fewer teams per company, fewer Groups, etc. Finally, you can rob support organizations, like SWCS to put more personnel on teams.

We went through a bad period a few years ago and graduated far fewer personnel than we needed to replace losses. People left at an accelerated rate, which was forseeable, but was assumed away. Simultaneously, we experienced poor graduation rates, due, IMHO to standards creep and the "I earned mine, now you gotta earn yours" attitude.

We have implemented retention measures to keep qualified personnel up to and beyond 20 years.

The purpose of an evaluation is to determine whether the student can demonstrate practical application or retention of desired knowledge. I can write a test for any block of instruction which covers presented material that 100% can pass, or 0%. A proper evaluation will rank the student in terms of his ability to recall (or perform) critical tasks. An instructor, if not properly trained, motivated, or monitored, can insert his own standards into the testing, as whenther the needle was inserted at a 90 degree angle, or 88 degrees, or whether the time fuse was cut to the exact second or not, or whether "adequate security was emplaced, or not. Instructors are screened and monitored to ensure that they are testing the peoper standards. Evaluations used to be monitored internally for accuracy and efficacy. That Department was eliminated in one of the "streamlining" functions. We are currently laboring to replace that capability. We have no problem retraining, recycling, and relieving students who fail to me the proper evaluation of the standard. Commanders are asked to take a hard look at whether the student is deemed worth retaining, or not. We have too much invested in a student who has completed SFAS successfully and been PCSed to the SFQC to do otherwise.

To put the number of candidates required into the pipeline to produce the required number of graduates was not possible with existing limitations and the numbers in the post build-down Army. The "standards" had to change, or the end-strength would not be filled. Thus the allowable waiver of GT scores down to 100 and the decision to implement the 18X program, to attract additional personnel into the program. All personnel are still tested and those deemed to not posess the intellectual accumen to possibly complete the SFQC successfully are non-selected. OTOH, we do have E-7s going through the course, which seem to me to be a particularly bad idea, but one we have to accept, or stand down a portion of the force, like zeroing an ODA per company, or eliminating a Group. Some will say that was a lowering of the standard. I don't see it that way. Almost every student who is marginal gets evaluated as whether the cadre members would serve with him on an ODA. Students should arrive at the ODA with basic Skill Level 3 competency in their MOS, not have a diploma with an asterisk on it. At the same time, some will be better than others.

You can draw the cut line by those meeting evaluated standards, or at a percentage line (which could be above or below the standard line). We use the evaluated standard technique, but try to maintain consistency. For example, I have seen SFAS classes with 22% selected, and some at 60%. With that spread in the same FY, the question becomes, "what has changed"?

We have already seen what the stripping and undermanning of the schoolhouse will do to the graduation rate. At the same time, there are positions that can be filled by retirees, SF personnel on profiles, non-SF military personnel, contractors, civilians, etc. I cannot explain the SF drill sergeant business at the same time that we are contemplating retaining SFQC grads as SWCS cadre.

SOF and SF leadership are all fully qualified. No one wants to field a full force of sub-standard personnel. That is a recipe for disaster. I have often said that I would rather have an ODA with 8 good guys I can count on, than 12 with three requiring full-time baby sitters. I have served under ARSOF commanders who were not SF qualified, and did not understand that. I believe that our current leadership is acting responsibly to honor the oath they have sworn. At the same time, hard decisions must be made in times like this.

Who among us did not think that the ones who put us through the course were better men, or those who followed us were a little less qualified? My first SF soldier I knew well was a two star CIB wearing SGM with 5 gold stars on his master wings and a chest full of medals. Who the heck was I to replace him?

I think that we would all want to see SF continuing to set the standard in the future that it has through all of our careers, from the 50s era Lodge Act and WW II vets who wrote the book, to the 60s era SF soldiers who set the standard in combat, to the 70s era soldiers who served when times got tough for SF, through the 80s when SF was growing again, the 90s with SF employed in combat globally, till now with our SF soldiers being the first to strike back against the terrorists who dared attack this great nation. I think the guys that who are earning berets now will do us proud, or I would not be working here.

Hope that answers the mail.

TR

TR, you make good points, but I still disagree.

RL, I will not inumerate my opinions on an open forum.

TR, If you wish to see me for my opinions, please stop by and I will give them to you face to face.

And that there ladies and gentlemen is what separates this forum from all the others I have frequented. APROFESSIONALsoldier.com...

Exactly as I was hoping this would end. :cool:

(although my honest hope was it being moved to the QP only area and RL getting banned. LOL haha )

Just my opinion,...(SF Only)
 

Delete *.*

As a team sergeant, as an SWC instructor and as a staff puke, I have seen this topic from all sides and I have to say I am in agreement with Longrange1947. I do not agree with the opinions expressed by others in this thread and find it to be far from the ground truth....it may be the party line "truth", but it's not the real ground truth. Don't drink the Kool-aid.

Coming to this thread a bit late... my apologies.

I graduated the 18D course in 92. Recently, as a physician, I've had opportunity to work with a few 18D candidates undergoing their clinical proficiency training at my hospital.

I am amazed at how smart these guys are, and their clinical decision-making skills.

I wish I could say I was that good at a similar point in my education (of course I was ;) but I digress)... but my point here, is that as far as medical knowledge goes, any concerns I had about when the course moved to the "new facility" at Bragg have generally been alleviated.

Of course, I can't speak about the hundred other skills, and maturity, judgement, etc, that make up an operator, just this one.

"Good job" to the guys working the 18D course nowadays. Keep 'em coming...

This is an easy one.

YES!

Back when I was still active and we had a certain general running SWC we were all brought into the auditorium in the academic facility. The SGM stood up and told us we were going to start training smarter in order to produce more soldiers but we were not going to lower the standards. We all of course knew that this would not be the case. It was all about numbers and they didn't want to spend any more money to produce those numbers. Talking with the other members of various committees throughout SWC confirmed what I thought. No way we could have produced more soldiers in the same period of time without lowering standards so they were cut. Throughout SWC we definitely cut standards and up until 2007 we were still doing so.

I showed up to my company on a Monday afternoon and at 0530 Tuesday morning I was on a C130 headed to St Croix. The next afternoon I was introduced to my team and got my first experience swimming on a budline. I spent the next 6 years finning my balls off on a surface swim team. Nobody ever asked me at group or batallion or company if I knew how to swim. My team sergeant never asked me if I knew how to swim. He handed me a snap link, a BC, and some fins and told me to go and I went.

How would that work if I had shown up unable to swim? That isn't hurting the standards?

The standards had to have been lowered. How else would I have gotten through? :D Back to your regularly scheduled thread......

RL maybe they took one look at your mean ol' self and hoped you couldn't. Don't put to much stock in being issued that BC . . . probably didn't work, anyway. Just for show.:p

I must apologize....
 

for re-opening this thread after a five year dry spell. I had previously put some thought to paper, when I remembered TR's last report, somewhat putting the thread to rest. Only after the "Delete *.*" scene did I get sevel PM's asking what did I say? Some thought a Moderator had deleted my post. It was I who decided to state my opinion with a "No Comment, I plea the 5th".

I will now say that which I could have said eariler, but didn't.

What is the cost benefit of having an increased cadre of SWCS trainers, the expansions of phases (I, II, III, IV, V, VI,....) versus the old I, II, III?

I simplied proposed eliminating SERE and Language from the course and allowing the Grps access to trained soldiers earlier, sending them down range immediately. Then allowing the ODA TM SGT's and CDRs to use their own descretion when sending soldiers to advanced schools.

From what I've heard from SWSC and Groups, the more you put in the pipeline does not necessarily reflect more output. It seems the total number of graduates has remained the same dispite efforts to increase Q volunteers.

Can we identify specifics as to each 18 series MOS where we beleive standards have dropped?, for each of the following areas, Commo, Medical, Weapons, Engineering. Not to mention 18A, or 180A.

SWSC is the largest and most experienced GROUP we have, hands down, none better.

I will leave the final decision to others much smarter than I.

WD

As one who came into SF when it was accused of lowering its standards to the lowest point - lots of body bags to be fillled - I can only say that from the quality of recent graduates of the course that I have seen and met, I don't think standards have been compromised that much.

You select an individual that "you think" will rise to the standard of an SF soldier that has been set over the years - by many men in this site (JJ, Teddy, LongRange, TR, and others) and HOPE that they rise to the occasion and opportunity. Some will. Some won't. It matters little. The fact that they have chosen this path shows that they have the ability to be that which they wish to be. Growing them to that path is the task of the Groups. Those Groups stand ready, as they always have. Give them "raw materials" and they will make them succeed - or not!

As one who arrived in Group thinking that I was "head and shoulders" above others - and quickly being shown that I was not (thank you etgynn - my first det. cdr.), it is up to the Sr. NCO's who are, and always have been, the backbone of SF, to make sure that the "tradition" carries on. IF they fail, we all fail. I don't think - in the long run - that they fail. They succeed. If need be, they take less than optimal " recruits" and turn them into hard-charging, capable, SF troopers.

I always have, and always will, put my trust in the Sr. NCO leadership that is, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN the backbone of SF. I trust those who hold the legacy, and the day I don't is the day I will no longer associate with sites such as PS.com or SFA. I know that day will NEVER come.

God bless those who trod the path in the past - and God bless those who choose to tread it in the future. Our country needs you, as it did in 1965, 1970, the 1980's, and to today - not for what it will bring you, but for what it will bring to the United States of America. Those who choose to rise to the calling WILL. Those who don't will fall by the wayside. God bless those who try.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Zonie - that was perfect!

WD

When I was doing my SWC tour I remember the old farts always carrying on about it, but even then (late 90's) the statistics were about the same as they always were before. As for the training standards, the statistics speak for themselves. No matter what they did with the budget, instructor:student ratio, hours, etc, the same percentage were graduating successfully.

BUT when in SF did you NOT need to know how to swim? It's a basic survival skill. We had to swim in Panama, Haiti, even in Asscrackistan we swamped trucks fording rivers and had to swim. We swam ropes across streams to carry gear across...the list goes on.

To any new guys going through the course who don't know how to swim, you need to make it a big priority to learn or you will someday become a liability for your team, mark my words.

Also, it's hard enough getting 10 guys per company to pass pre-scuba when 100% could swim!