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