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

[Papa Zero Three]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

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.

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.

[RichL025]

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...

[alelks]

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?

[Tyrant]

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

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by rltipton

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?

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.

Originally Posted by wet dog

Delete *.*

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

[ZonieDiver]

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...

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

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 backboe 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!

[glebo]

Originally Posted by alelks

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 was in SWC also when we were given those speaches.

I don't think I would go as far to say the standards were lowered, more like "loosely enforced" more than anything else. We still taught the same caliber of material, it was just harder trying to get rid of a guy, academicaly that is.

[The Reaper]

The SFQC graduated less than 250 students in 2001.

By 2005, they were on track to graduate 750. They have since been graduating upwards of 850.

When you do this without tripling the number of students assessed, how have you done this without changing the standards?

I believe that the course has been improved considerably over the past 20 years. I also believe that the leadership has recently made a conscious decision to assume risk and graduate at least 750 students per year, regardless of their performance. We probably did something similar during the Vietnam War when we needed warm bodies under berets. Doesn't mean the great guys were not getting through the course throughout our history. Just means that quite a few more are recently of a lower quality, some will pan out to be good SF soldiers, and some will not. It is then up to the teams to keep them and train them in the ways of the force, or to throw them back into the pool. Wartime requirements may necessitate compromises.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[glebo]

when I was on the commo committee (as a civilian) we were instructed that once a student gets "selected", they deem him trainable. If he fails, they put it on the instructor saying it's their fault.

Of course (slap head), you deemed him trainable, therefore it HAS to be our fault. How long we been training GB's??

In comparasion, how many bodies occupy a Ranger Battalion with assets, air, logistics? How many attend RIP and then the school? What are the total numbers for annual losses, or new graduates? What is the percentage of attendance vs. completion?

[longrange1947]

Gentlemen, when they don't let a man quit then you have a problem. As far as getting rid of him at Group level, think again.