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

[Basenshukai]

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.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

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.

[Team Sergeant]

Great post COL.

Welcome aboard!

[NousDefionsDoc]

Welcome aboard Sir.

[Basenshukai]

Originally posted by Jack Moroney
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.

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?"

[Eagle5US]

Sir,

Welcome on. Good post.

Eagle

[18C4V]

Sir,
Welcome aboard!!!

[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.

[Sacamuelas]

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

back to my original post now,

""

[Basenshukai]

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.

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

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Basenshukai
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 . . .)

[The Reaper]

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

[longrange1947]

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.

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by longrange1947
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.

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

Delete *.*