# change the enrollment standards



## bondarenkoa (12 Jun 2008)

ok people lets hear some opinions on the enrollment standards...i know there are alot of great people out there that are in great shaope to perform their duty as a soldier, but dont reach the enrollment standards due to some number.....

V - Visual Acuity
      V1 to V5    (V1 is good vision, V5 is poor vision)
      You must be V1 to V4 to be enrolled. 

H - Hearing (Auditory Acuity)
     H1 to H4  ( H1 is standard hearing or above, H4 is poor)
     You must be H1 or H2 to be enrolled.

why would the vision accept v1 to v4.......why cant they accept h1 to h3.......


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

bondarenkoa said:
			
		

> why would the vision accept v1 to v4.......why cant they accept h1 to h3.......



You are comparing apples to monkeys.


----------



## MedTechStudent (12 Jun 2008)

Because a big group of guys and gals who know a lot more about medicine, military service, and politics that you or I says so.  I've accepted it.

Out of curiosity is this question stemming from some kind of personal experience?  ???

Or are you just asking for random clarification? (Which I assume no one here is able to give with any authority.)


----------



## VM (12 Jun 2008)

bondarenkoa said:
			
		

> ok people lets hear some opinions on the enrollment standards...i know there are alot of great people out there that are in great shaope to perform their duty as a soldier, but dont reach the enrollment standards due to some number.....
> 
> V - Visual Acuity
> V1 to V5    (V1 is good vision, V5 is poor vision)
> ...



I'm willing to bet that YOU are the only person YOU know who THINKS they are in great shape but didn't meet the enrollement standards. Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? 

Probably not, id be surprised if you even knew what contradiction meant.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity is this question stemming from some kind of personal experience?  ???



Go read his posting history for some background.


----------



## MedTechStudent (12 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Go read his posting history for some background.



Ya just finished that now.  And after reading all three pages I can say the following.

The standards are not in the wrong, you are, you did not meet them.  Your frustration comes from the fact that it is not directly your fault, but that of your body.  I can understand how hard that is.  However, trying to get everyone to agree that you are being wronged, is not the way to go.  And everyone in here who *did* pass the test won't come over to your side on whether the tests should be more "slack."  I sympathize, but as I said the rules are in place for the greater good.  You assumption on how well you can hear is limited by your ability.  Just because you think you hear fine, does not mean you hear fine *enough*.  Same way people who are born blind have it better that those who end up that way.  They are just born with it, its all they know.  (best comparison I could come up with right now)

As I said, I'm sure we all sympathize with you, but there is nothing that we here can do.  Getting every army.ca member to sign some online petition saying "Make Hearing Standards Lower" would not do anything either.  

Go to the CFRC and have them point you in the right direction, if you wish to fight your results, someone there can also point you in *that* direction.

Best of luck to you!

Cheers, Kyle


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2008)

bondarenkoa said:
			
		

> ok people lets hear some opinions on the enrollment standards...i know there are alot of great people out there that are in great shaope to perform their duty as a soldier, but dont reach the enrollment standards due to some number.....



While I sympathize with your unfortunate personal situation, these standards exist for valid reasons up to and including your life, the lives of your comrades, and possibly others.

The CF exists to defend this country and its people and interests. It does not exist to provide employment. Our mission comes first, before you, and before any of us either.

While some of the standards may appear to be arbitrary, they cannot be tailored to every job, and those jobs often overlap others as well.

If we did lower the standards for one person, there'd be another come along needing an even lower standard to get in and it would never end until we accepted self-mobile blobs of protoplasm so long as they could speak at least one official language and write in MSN-speak - and even that standard would get challenged.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it has.

The day that I drop below the medical category for my specialty is the day that I cease to be a Pilot, and then it will suck to be me too, but that's the way that it is and has to be.


----------



## dwalter (12 Jun 2008)

Having read your previous post in the personal stories section I do feel some sympathy for you. Finding out you don't meet the medical standard is a hard thing, I had to go through it for my primary trade choice. Unfortunately the way you are going about this is rather childish. You can't expect that just because things didn't go your way, you can suddenly rally up a bunch of people and make a stand against the system. That isn't the way politics works. The only thing you can do is follow the advice of the professionals, being the people at the recruiting center. They can direct you, and let you know of any other opportunities you may not have thought of. 

For example, you might think of checking out the medical standards for enrollment with the RCMP as a possible alternate option if you are set on working in the government and civil service.


----------



## MedTechStudent (12 Jun 2008)

Intelligent Design said:
			
		

> you can suddenly rally up a bunch of people and make a stand against the system. That isn't the way politics works.



Unless your France.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jun 2008)

Yep. Just read through it all too. Sorry about your luck, but standards are standards. You've been told this many times, coyly and pointedly. You've tried to circumvent the process by getting your MP involved. Unless something miraculous happens, and you become an H2, you're not getting in. 

Locked, for the final time.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Mauler666 (11 Jul 2008)

"standards" are not standards, they are guidelines.  If your condition ( such as a slight loss of hearing in one of six frequency ranges in one ear, say, the left one from shooting a lot, as is the case with many who have an extensive history with firearms use [which i would think a boon]) can not be shown to possibly create a medical employment limitation (MEL), then there is no reason why you should not be considered a valid applicant.  Bureaucracy (standards) is not necessarily common sense or one-size-fits-all or the best solution to every problem.


----------



## MamaBear (11 Jul 2008)

Mauler666 said:
			
		

> "standards" are not standards, they are guidelines.  If your condition ( such as a slight loss of hearing in one of six frequency ranges in one ear, say, the left one from shooting a lot, as is the case with many who have an extensive history with firearms use [which i would think a boon]) can not be shown to possibly create a medical employment limitation (MEL), then there is no reason why you should not be considered a valid applicant.  Bureaucracy (standards) is not necessarily common sense or one-size-fits-all or the best solution to every problem.



Some may argue that it isn't fair to limit a new applicant to an H2 standard considering there are now service personnel who, through age, environment and simple physical deterioration, are an H3.  The difference is... and it's a big one.... is that the service person whose hearing has deteriorated over time *has already acquired the other skills required to function in their MOC*.  It's rather like suddenly becoming blind.  Anyone would probably have an easier time finding their way around their own house versus a complete stranger's.  We become comfortable with what we know.  So, I would trust someone who has been on the job for 10 years with a hearing loss, but I sure wouldn't trust someone new to the trade.

Just the opinion of a Mom whose daughter is going to be as dependant on others doing their job well, as they will of her.


----------



## Mauler666 (11 Jul 2008)

I'm not sure that you understand how fine the line is between H2 and H3.


----------



## MamaBear (11 Jul 2008)

There's always a fine line between anything.  But the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.  And though I feel sorry for someone whose dreams are dashed in this way, that's life.  And in truth, it shows more character to swallow a "no" and press forward to another rewarding goal, than to try and circumvent rules which are in place for a very valid reason.


----------



## Loachman (11 Jul 2008)

Mauler666 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that you understand how fine the line is between H2 and H3.



I'm not sure that you understand that it is _*still*_ a line, fine or wide, and it has been decided that it _*is*_ the limit.

It _*is*_ the standard, and is *not* a guideline.

Your opinion regarding that is completely irrelevant.


----------

