# Recruits of the last half decade: Fatter, dumber and less motivated than before.



## McG (17 Aug 2013)

The press has stumbled upon what many from this site have been saying for a few years.


> *Canada’s military forced to accept fatter, less educated recruits as demographics change, audit reveals*
> Lee Berthiaume,
> The National Post
> 17 August 2013, 1:06 AM ET
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/17/canadas-military-forced-to-accept-fatter-less-educated-recruits-as-demographics-change-audit-reveals/


----------



## kevincanada (17 Aug 2013)

While this reply be taken as opinion only and NOT factual.  It is not hard to see.  I now in my 30's when I was a kid my area had hmm one Mcdonalds, one KFC.  No Tim Hortons, no internet. no cell phones.  Coffee? you had to go in sit in a restaurant and order it.  No drive through.

Growing up for me it was GET OUT OF THE HOUSE.  I don't want to see you until dinner.  Boy I was trim and fit.  Eat out? Drink coffee? Never happened.  There was maybe 2 obese kids in high school and a few over weight.  Everyone else was thin.  No vending machines.  Cafeteria had a daily limit on junk food and when it sold out that was it no more.

Now I just finished up work on a construction site (BMQ here I come in a week)  At least 1/4 of the guys are over weight,  10% probably obese, and Iestimate 50% of the workers eat out daily, Burgers, Street meat, Extra large triple triple coffee twice daily.  My youth lunches? Peanut butter sandwich, apple and some kind of healthy drink.  If lucky I got a cookie lol.

Recreation of a youth now? Video game on the internet.  Recreation of my youth? Play football then go crying to parents for bandages and ice in a towel.

I can see why we are all fat and out of shape.

My 5cents rounded up from 3.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Aug 2013)

Perhaps if the CAF started up a entrance PT test for Reg F applicants, we could solve one of the problems.  As for the other part....based on the post in the recruiting forums, and from my time in a CFRC, the number of applicants who are quite frankly inept is astounding (and one wonders how anyone managed to figure out the steps to joining prior to the advent of the internet.....oh wait I know they would actually make contact with the organization itself).   Perhaps if the CFRG started acting like every other employer and started trashing applications that are junk (incomplete, missing info, wrong info, illegible etc.), it would help sort out the cruft.  I wasn't allowed to trash these file (and people who worked with know that I tried my hardest to get crappy applicants tossed), so I just made them my absolute lowest priority.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2013)

The "No one Fails" philosophy crept into our lives in the mid to late '90s.  There where many a crse passed through the CTC with 100% pass rates.   This only meant that the Units had to retrain what the Schools had sent them.  A totally BS way to operate.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Aug 2013)

"[n]ew recruits who are fatter, less educated and harder to motivate than previous generations." 

Isn't that something _ALL _trades are experiencing these days, not just the military?


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Aug 2013)

I love the "less educated = dumb" inference.  I signed on the line in 1979 with a grade 11 education.  While I'm not the most educated sapper ever to lift an MGB bank seat beam, I'm pretty sure I'm not dumb.  Opinions may vary, but in hour 16 of a bridge build, most guys agree that a Doctorate in Medieval Scandinavian Literature wasn't much use.  My masters in Repeatedly Lifting and Carrying Heavy Shit was pretty handy though.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Aug 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I love the "less educated = dumb" inference....



Perhaps they meant less educated in the school of reality?


----------



## McG (17 Aug 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I love the "less educated = dumb" inference.  I signed on the line in 1979 with a grade 11 education.


In your day, the world did not expect that minimum highschool education and heading off early into the workforce was not so discouraged.
Today, it is easier to finish school.  There are plenty of safety nets, and leave no kid behind attitudes.  The idea that everyone needs highschool is much more uniformly inculcated.
In your day, quitting school did not mean dumb but you were at the end of that era.  Somewhere into the '80s or very early '90s that changed.  If we are currently seeing a wave of applicants with an increasing number who chose not to have highschool, those individuals made a dumb choice somewhere - that choice reflects upon them.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Aug 2013)

I think some people are just too harsh and demanding of our recruits.





:rofl:  
 I slay me sometimes.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Aug 2013)

Caesar complained about his recruits being useless.  It's what you do with the clay that matters.  No story here.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Aug 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> In your day, the world did not expect that minimum highschool education and heading off early into the workforce was not so discouraged.
> Today, it is easier to finish school.  There are plenty of safety nets, and leave no kid behind attitudes.  The idea that everyone needs highschool is much more uniformly inculcated.
> In your day, quitting school did not mean dumb but you were at the end of that era.  Somewhere into the '80s or very early '90s that changed.  If we are currently seeing a wave of applicants with an increasing number who chose not to have highschool, those individuals made a dumb choice somewhere - that choice reflects upon them.



Without going into specifics, there are plenty of reasons other than being dumb to get away from school and out earning, and your generalizing it as such is insulting. Not everyone is suited to an academic environment, that doesn't make them dumb. Why do we need to send someone with an expensive education of to kill people, or die in some highly dramatic fashion?  I don't get how much more complicated a soldiers job is now, other than carrying ever more increasing amounts of crap on their backs, that requires a post secondary, or even secondary for that matter, education.  Plenty of people in the army can calculate the square root of a jar of pickles to seven decimal places, but can't get the lid off.


----------



## Nudibranch (17 Aug 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> "[n]ew recruits who are fatter, less educated and harder to motivate than previous generations."
> 
> Isn't that something _ALL _trades are experiencing these days, not just the military?



Sure. CAF draws recruits from the population. The population has gotten fatter and more sedentary *shrug*


----------



## garb811 (17 Aug 2013)

Continuing the "less educated" issue, less educated compared to when?  

I know when I got in in 85, nobody had post secondary...or if they did, they sure didn't let anyone know, and as Kat pointed out, there were folks coming in who hadn't completed HS.  Fast forward to FRP and from 94-95 until about 02, recruiting slowed to a crawl as the Forces downsized and adjusted to the colossal imbalances among ranks and trades that the mismanagement of FRP produced.  During those years I certainly recall an increase in the required education level to be competitive and get through the door simply because the the intake of recruits was so low, especially in the purple trades where it seemed OTs became more prevalent, if not the norm, as opposed to direct entries.  Hell, I remember going on course in Borden in 99 and it was a virtual ghost town as very few courses were being run anywhere.  So if it is "those years" they are using to bench mark, of course there has been a lowering of the education level as the CAF adjusted back to its normal recruiting patterns.

Now, for my trade, there has certainly been an increase in the level of education due to it a 2 year diploma becoming mandatory for direct entries (and plenty of shining examples of edumication =/= smrt); still have the problem of fatter and less motivated though.


----------



## cjette1 (17 Aug 2013)

Alright here goes,

I am speaking this opinion from a 21 year old white male youth. Here are a few things I can speak on about my generation (especially in relation to military standards).

I see one main problem as being that my generation is being raised and shown a "Hollywoodized" depiction of the military. We are raised believing ourselves to be gods because we continually buy into the hyped up video games and movies showing that it's cool to be a super baddass. But they seldom show the emotional and physical stress one would ultimately have to deal with to succeed within the military. Sure you can "own noobs at Call of Duty", but could you realistically pull the trigger to defend your brothers, sisters and own life in a split second? You don't need to be fit, smart or motivated to buy a movie ticket or play a video game. You just need to be interested. And I see some of my generation take that "interest" too far and try to enlist because it's "cool".

No I don't know a thing about recruiting a certain "type" of person or how to combat this new epidemic. But what I can say is that as long as Hollywood and other mainstream outlets pump out over hyped garbage not much will change. The quality of recruits will continue to drop and some drastic measures might be introduced. But the truth is, you will never be able to remove the human element of the military. It's ultimately up to said military what fills that human element, be it fat and dumb, or fit and motivated. 

Now this is quick insight into my personal situation and mostly pertains to the baby boomers and the topic at hand.
Whenever I tell baby boomers of my career choices, I usually get the same reaction. 
"Do you plan on going to school soon"?
"Not yet, I'm actually planning on enlisting and seeing where it goes"
I then get the long drawn out "ohhhh, well how nice and noble" (often times with undertones of "you silly impressionable boy")

I would be without fingers for the amount of times this exact situation has occurred. And I feel it ties in with the whole fatter, dumber, less motivated topic. There is still a sort of stigma attached to the armed forces. The stereotype of "uneducated meat head" is still regularly associated with the military. And when, your 17-25 and your friends are going to be pulling in 80K a year with a decent education, would you want to be is the "meat head soldier" of the bunch. With this said, I feel like it's becoming harder to sell the profession of arms as a viable option in the 21st century. 

Long story short, if you're motivated, educated and given a choice, would you rather become an engineer in some civil firm or become a combat engineer and possibly one day risk making the ultimate sacrifice? Well, one has about double the salary as the other, stability, and comfort. 

Back to my original point, after the above choice is made, it's more possible to be the person who "saw it in a video game" that would choose the latter. 

Anyways, sorry about the rambling and if I darted across the map on this one. I just feel very strongly about the topic and had quite a few ideas swimming around. My  :2c:


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2013)

I think "less educated" was a poor word choice. Not only does it imply that less formal education = dumber, it also means that we have recruits with less formal education than we used to, and I don't believe that for a second. I very much doubt we have more high-school drop-outs getting sworn-in than we used to, and I definitely think we have more people with post-secondary getting in that we used to.

But the fact is, with the state of today's formal education, graduating high school does not necessarily mean you can read or write coherently. And I think that's what they were getting at. Basic skills such as literacy and arithmetic seem to escape your average 16-20 year old these days. It's not that they have less formal education, it's that they have never been held to a standard throughout their education that we used to expect.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Aug 2013)

cjette1 said:
			
		

> No I don't know a thing about recruiting a certain "type" of person or how to combat this new epidemic. But what I can say is that as long as Hollywood and other mainstream outlets pump out over hyped garbage not much will change. The quality of recruits will continue to drop and some drastic measures might be introduced. But the truth is, you will never be able to remove the human element of the military. It's ultimately up to said military what fills that human element, be it fat and dumb, or fit and motivated.
> I would be without fingers for the amount of times this exact situation has occurred. And I feel it ties in with the whole fatter, dumber, less motivated topic. There is still a sort of stigma attached to the armed forces. The stereotype of "uneducated meat head" is still regularly associated with the military. And when, your 17-25 and your friends are going to be pulling in 80K a year with a decent education, would you want to be is the "meat head soldier" of the bunch. With this said, I feel like it's becoming harder to sell the profession of arms as a viable option in the 21st century.



How is it becoming harder to sell the profession of arms? We currently have a surplus of applicants for a limited number of positions. More and more people are considering it as a viable career when they learn of all the benefits, pay rates, and stability the military has (especially considering its one of the few places that doesn't require x degree or diploma to get in). Also considering in approximately as a Corporal 1 (something you get after 4 years in) your making about $56,000 (pulled of the Forces website) that's not to shabby (especially when you add in sea/field/spec/whatever pay).
I personally take offence to being called fat, dumb, and less motivated. Some people getting in are, but so are some people in higher ranks. So what if I only have a high school education, it so far hasn't affected my job (the military teaches me everything I need to know to do the job anyways). The way I see it I'm ahead of many of the people who have gone to university for (insert useless degree here). It will cost them approximately $20,000 per year for that education which I doubt they will find a decent stable well paying job with. I'm already in a stable well paying job at age 18, so why would I ever need to get a degree? Fitness wise I can see that being a problem but if the Forces are unwilling to place at least a initial fitness test when joining of course there is going to be a fitness drop (also society in general isn't quite the at the fitness level of yesteryear, the Forces are only a representation of society).


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> But the fact is, with the state of today's formal education, graduating high school does not necessarily mean you can read or write coherently. And I think that's what they were getting at. Basic skills such as literacy and arithmetic seem to escape your average 16-20 year old these days. It's not that they have less formal education, it's that they have never been held to a standard throughout their education that we used to expect.



Bingo

All one has to do is go through recruiting forums here to see this in action (or if they are slightly masochistic/insane do a stint in the recruiting realm).  Lack of detail to grammar and spelling.  People fretting over Grade 10 math and English (ie the CFAT), and some of them have degrees.  

Sort of  in the same vein (re education or lack thereof), my brother just found out he has been rated on "ratemyprof" (he is an English instructor at U of A), apparently the gripes are, he actually makes students do work, and you should avoid his classes if you are just looking for something to boost your GPA.  Now shopping around for easier profs/courses is not new, but it is much easier to do now, and with cases of profs/teachers in some places getting sanctioned or out right fired, for giving poor little snowflakes a failing grade....well, things are going to be a mess when all the social engineers finally retire, and the world is entrusted to the "no one is left behind" generation.


----------



## armyvern (17 Aug 2013)

I have been told recently that my High School Diploma from way-back-when (hi Kat - no worries on you!!) is the equivelant to today's BA.

Education has apparently been dumbed down (no fail right??) at the same rate Canadians have beefed up.

Someone's already said it, "no story here".


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Sort of  in the same vein (re education or lack thereof), my brother just found out he has been rated on "ratemyprof" (he is an English instructor at U of A), apparently the gripes are, he actually makes students do work, and you should avoid his classes if you are just looking for something to boost your GPA.  Now shopping around for easier profs/courses is not new, but it is much easier to do now, and with cases of profs/teachers in some places getting sanctioned or out right fired, for giving poor little snowflakes a failing grade....well, things are going to be a mess when all the social engineers finally retire, and the world is entrusted to the "no one is left behind" generation.



I loved ratemyprof... having a conversation with the best prof I ever had, the only prof that tried to force students to learn a concept and *apply it* to an "unknown" problem, he brought up ratemyprof and how he is crucified on there for making students learn. Luckily, he's one of the few left that cares too much about actual education to "change," and he doesn't care what consequences there are for it. He even gave me a *wink wink nudge nudge* hint that indicated to me that a part of the professors compensation is tied to how they score on their "end-of-course reviews" which are filled out BY THE STUDENTS... talk about the tail wagging the f**king dog!!! Heartbreaking to know that the best profs (who actually care about the students and want them to learn and succeed after their degree program) are being hurt financially, while the worst ones who pander to the students and try to be their "friend" are being rewarded financially for it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Aug 2013)

I think this cartoon sums up what's wrong with education/society today;







I spoke to someone recently who had an applicant bring their parent with them to a job interview at an engineering firm.  Oddly they didn't hire them, as their mom was answering questions for them.

Shortly before we left Nova Scotia, there was a report by someone saying that the functional literacy rate of high school grads was around 80%; those 'no one left behind' policies are really successful at setting people up for failure in life.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> I loved ratemyprof... having a conversation with the best prof I ever had, the only prof that tried to force students to learn a concept and *apply it* to an "unknown" problem, he brought up ratemyprof and how he is crucified on there for making students learn. Luckily, he's one of the few left that cares too much about actual education to "change," and he doesn't care what consequences there are for it. He even gave me a *wink wink nudge nudge* hint that indicated to me that a part of the professors compensation is tied to how they score on their "end-of-course reviews" which are filled out BY THE STUDENTS... talk about the tail wagging the f**king dog!!! Heartbreaking to know that the best profs (who actually care about the students and want them to learn and succeed after their degree program) are being hurt financially, while the worst ones who pander to the students and try to be their "friend" are being rewarded financially for it.



I think I must be an oddball, I get really annoyed to the point of being pissed, if a course I am taking requires no thought in order to pass...something about getting value for my money.  One of the big reasons I now stick to online education, I couldn't justify sitting in 3 hour lectures, without engaging my brain, when I could be doing something productive like making money.


----------



## cjette1 (17 Aug 2013)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> How is it becoming harder to sell the profession of arms?



I just feel that if you were to compare a civilian job with the equivalency in the military it would seem much more viable for most to opt in for the civvie job. Ex: Would one rather settle down with a trade ticket in a high paying competitive civilian industry or leave all of the comfort behind and take the equivalent position in the military? With this idea floating around most (key words) "educated, motivated young people would be drawn to the civilian market. This weeding in numbers could attribute to the lower recruiting standards. Yes there are high applicant numbers each year, but of those how many would qualify as "well educated, fit and motivated". My previous post was trying to point a finger at applicants being sold on the profession of arms due to what they saw on t.v.

After some thought, I retract my statement of trying to sell the profession of arms. To clarify, it's becoming harder to sell the profession of arms to the right targets. Well educated, motivated youth = perfect...provided they don't get lost to the civilian trades first.

This is really an interesting topic.


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I think I must be an oddball, I get really annoyed to the point of being pissed, if course I am taking requires no thought in order to pass...



That's why I could never motivate myself to put anything into it... I am much more motivated to show up to a jiu jitsu class where I learn things every day and am challenged by others around me, and also much more motivated for a field ex or something due to the challenge of "here's a problem, here's your resources / constraints, solve it." As opposed to, "here's the example problem, here's how to solve it, memorize it because it will be on the test in the exact same form with different values and names."


----------



## BeyondTheNow (17 Aug 2013)

As was mentioned in an earlier post, this is an issue outside of the military as well. Having many friends in managerial positions, as well has having held leadership roles myself, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find employees who are simply willing to work. Period. Regardless of what the job entails.

For me, one word comes to mind. Value. The _value_ of a hard days work. The _value_ of a dollar.  The _value_ of being independent. The _value_ of making wise decisions and possessing the ability of discernment in order to distinguish between what is actually considered to be the wise choice. Why isn't value being taught anymore? Instead, it's become a matter of too many instances of self-absorption and entitlement, and parents who are willing to bail the kids out for every little thing--Kids who are *somehow* having it ingrained in their psyche that they are above being told what to do, being reprimanded in class, performing their job/school duties at the level their supervisor/teacher wishes, being told "No."

The only good news, IMO, is that these issues are slowly being recognized. Those who screwed it up in the first place are realizing that they don't want a bunch of fat, lazy, unproductive people hanging around and making everything else difficult for those who have to pick up the slack.  Hopefully, the damage can be reversed, but it'll take a while.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Aug 2013)

OK, this is clearly a "Recruiting" topic masquerading as a "Military Current Affairs & News" topic.  

While the subject may hurt the feelings of some recruit posters, if you disbelieve the article writer's premise, just go browse the Recruiting threads.  The reason most of the responses here are literate and coherent is simply _because_, not being posted in Recruiting, it doesn't attract the attention of the illiterate, knuckle-dragging XBox players...pretty much proving the author's point of view regarding the knock-on effect of the 'no one fails' scholastic system.

As for fatter, it's been noted that society is generally getting more sedentary. As for less motivated, there's plenty of commentary out there about the 'self-entitled' generation.


As one who generally ignores the Recruiting threads, I don't find the article remotely newsworthy or shocking.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Aug 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, this is clearly a "Recruiting" topic masquerading as a "Military Current Affairs & News" topic.
> 
> While the subject may hurt the feelings of some recruit posters, if you disbelieve the article writer's premise, just go browse the Recruiting threads.  The reason most of the responses here are literate and coherent is simply _because_, not being posted in Recruiting, it doesn't attract the attention of the illiterate, knuckle-dragging XBox players...pretty much proving the author's point of view regarding the knock-on effect of the 'no one fails' scholastic system.
> 
> ...




That's becuz yore edgycated and smrt.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Aug 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That's becuz yore edgycated and smrt.


Nahhh....I joined with grade 10, back when that was OK.  But when my friends were out drinking and getting laid, I was doing night school and correspondence courses.    :facepalm:


----------



## kevincanada (17 Aug 2013)

cjette1 said:
			
		

> I just feel that if you were to compare a civilian job with the equivalency in the military it would seem much more viable for most to opt in for the civvie job. Ex: Would one rather settle down with a trade ticket in a high paying competitive civilian industry or leave all of the comfort behind and take the equivalent position in the military? With this idea floating around most (key words) "educated, motivated young people would be drawn to the civilian market. This weeding in numbers could attribute to the lower recruiting standards. Yes there are high applicant numbers each year, but of those how many would qualify as "well educated, fit and motivated". My previous post was trying to point a finger at applicants being sold on the profession of arms due to what they saw on t.v.
> 
> After some thought, I retract my statement of trying to sell the profession of arms. To clarify, it's becoming harder to sell the profession of arms to the right targets. Well educated, motivated youth = perfect...provided they don't get lost to the civilian trades first.
> 
> This is really an interesting topic.



I worked in civilian trades, the luscious amounts of money you earn is fleeting at best.  Unless you work for a Union local and are registered apprentice trying to achieve a Red Seal license you won't make much.  I took a temporary 2 month job, worked on a Union Condo tower site to tie me over in Toronto.  Most of the workers non union, low pay, no benefits/pension and they are all self-employed. The companies don't even hire employees anymore.  100% sub-contractors working at general labourer rates.   The only guys who get the money are the union boys.  They are often a minority on job sites, not majority.  Unless you are union and licensed,  Skilled Trades making big $$$ in civie market is a pipe dream.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Aug 2013)

This morning I made the observation to my wife that people have become fatter, lazier and stupider than ever. I guess I'm proved right!


----------



## kevincanada (17 Aug 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This morning I made the observation to my wife that people have become fatter, lazier and stupider than ever. I guess I'm proved right!



huh?  ;D


----------



## JorgSlice (17 Aug 2013)

kevincanada said:
			
		

> I worked in civilian trades, the luscious amounts of money you earn is fleeting at best.  Unless you work for a Union local and are registered apprentice trying to achieve a Red Seal license you won't make much.  I took a temporary 2 month job, worked on a Union Condo tower site to tie me over in Toronto.  Most of the workers non union, low pay, no benefits/pension and they are all self-employed. The companies don't even hire employees anymore.  100% sub-contractors working at general labourer rates.   The only guys who get the money are the union boys.  They are often a minority on job sites, not majority.  Unless you are union and licensed,  Skilled Trades making big $$$ in civie market is a pipe dream.



No idea where you've been working. When I was 16 doing my Millwright apprenticeship through a high school co-op programme, I was earning the % of a journeyman's wage, non-union, and still making $22/hr. Over the next 3 years I jumped from 22-36 and once I was red seal certified I could have gone and made bigger dollars with rail, hydro, petroleum. I saved up enough money through a high school apprentice ship that even with my university scholarships, I was being paid to complete a Criminal Justice degree. Tradesmen do make boatloads of money even of you're in a province with a less-than-ideal economy and job market (BC, MB, ON, QC).

Super off topic though.

I agree with the premise of this thread. There needs to be more done to reverse this trend of "fatter, dumber" etc. I did not aspire to be in a CF that is publicly known as fat and dumb.


----------



## kevincanada (17 Aug 2013)

Yes if you are a apprentice and getting a ticket you are good to go in the trades or work for a union you are good.  There are many sites that avoid union workers.  If that's the case you get nothing.  As in the Condo market with the big towers going up.  The electrical, mechanical and plumbing aspects all ticketed workers making good money.  Everybody else? Kitchen installers, Tilers, drywallers, painters, customer care nope.  The essential Licensed stuff goes to the unions on the big sites, everything else gets sub-contracted out to the lowest bidder.

I'm going a little off topic.  I was only trying to point out.  If you want the money get a ticket, work for a union and you will be paid.  My local speedy mechanic I asked him last time I was in and he told me he doesn't have a license.  Yet I still paid full rate.  Hmm where did the money goooo?


----------



## Robert0288 (17 Aug 2013)

And swinging back on target.

Could the fall of good applicants be more the cause of a lack of an extremely high profile mission, such as Afghanistan?  The dudes that are hard charging educated and driven, may be looking more towards industry and civy employment specifically because they don't have a visible destination to set their eyes on.  Which would explain why the entry standards into the CF, especially into the combat arms trades, appeared to go up in the last decade.

I'm also a huge believer in conducting the fitness test as part of the recruiting process prior to enrollment.  Doing that provides minimal extra effort on behalf of the CF recruitment process. Eliminates the need to force people into shape via warrior/fitness Pl etc... and provides incentive for people who want to join to get in shape before joining.

At the recruiting center give out panflets on proper diet, and basic physical fitness.  

Even if they don't eventually join, you helped add to the national fitness of the country reducing obesity and other related health issues /grand strategy


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Aug 2013)

The CAF does have a lack of "good"  applicants.  One of the issues (which I alluded to earlier), is the "no one left behind" mindset has worked it's way into CFRG.  It was EXTREMELY difficult (and frustrating), to convince my supervisors to junk bad applicants (and for sake of clarity I am talking about new applicants, not people looking to rejoin with unfavourable release categories that's a whole different issue).   Applications that a McDonald's manager would pass on were/are being pushed through the system, which leads to many of these applications eventually getting merit listed (short of completely failing an interview, or having a really serious credit/criminal background return, or medical issues, almost everyone gets merit listed).  And well eventually some of these shining stars get hired.

The CAF can't fix society, but it sure as heck can improve how it recruits people, and it's not that hard really.  For starters, just enforcing the policies that are in place, and not accepting ANY incomplete/improper paperwork, would dramatically cut down crappy applicants, and allow the system to more quickly and effectively process the applicants who aren't morons and can properly follow directions.


----------



## Bert (18 Aug 2013)

I think this is one of the stupidest National Post articles I've ever read.   Depending on point of view, if the "fatter, dumber, less motivated recruit" before BMQ is still that way after their QL5A when they start being useful (and not
a recruit anymore), then the problem is systemic and not the recruit in my opinion.   There are a number of generational masses moving through the system, Babyboomers, Gen X, Y, and Z, impacted with societal attitudes, however
the Supervisor expects the new guy in the section to continually learn, be reliable, and contribute irrespective of the member's initial starting point.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Caesar complained about his recruits being useless.  It's what you do with the clay that matters.  No story here.



+1


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2013)

Bert said:
			
		

> I think this is one of the stupidest National Post articles I've ever read.   Depending on point of view, if the "fatter, dumber, less motivated recruit" before BMQ is still that way after their QL5A when they start being useful (and not
> a recruit anymore), then the problem is systemic and not the recruit in my opinion.   There are a number of generational masses moving through the system, Babyboomers, Gen X, Y, and Z, impacted with societal attitudes, however
> the Supervisor expects the new guy in the section to continually learn, be reliable, and contribute irrespective of the member's initial starting point.



Wow!!  You mean the CF resembles a cross-section of Canadian society!!??  Who knew.  Like has been said numerous times in the thread already ... no story here.

 :nod:


----------



## Uther419 (18 Aug 2013)

In my opinion,the CF should go back to how basic was with WW2, with the aim of getting all person's in shape as the primary focus, with soldier training mixed in. This may help flush out the unmotivated recruits, or undesirables who can't go with the flow, even if they are He-man. Another point, just because back in the day people were thinner doesn't mean that they were more fit. Obesity maybe up but what system are we using? BMI? Its been shown time and time again how flawed that that system can be. I personally am 240 Lb's 6'2 and have a bit extra around the middle. I've always had poor upper body strength but I do have the motivation to change that, hence why I'm always sore from working out. Also with the focus on university our society has, and the idea your life is over if you don't have it, it makes sense why were getting the "uneducated" and "dumb", because they see the CF as their way out and into a job that makes a decent living. Just my  :2c: 

*Edited for grammar and spelling*


----------



## caocao (18 Aug 2013)

Like someone said before in this or other thread there should be a pt test as part on the recruiting process.  You can't pass, well sorry but you are going to have to try again some other time.  Enough of that spending months on the fat platoon collecting pay and pensionable time.


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2013)

caocao said:
			
		

> Like someone said before in this or other thread there should be a pt test as part on the recruiting process.  You can't pass, well sorry but you are going to have to try again some other time.  Enough of that spending months on the fat platoon collecting pay and pensionable time.



I don't think you'll find too many who disagree on this front;  that 'lil old Hillier 5K Growth Surge resulted in that change to "no fitness test to enroll" (more realistically named "grow me by 5K by any means possible NOW") which, I believe, was the beginning of the slide and has most probably cost us millions in supporting deadwood.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Aug 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll find too many who disagree on this front;  that 'lil old Hillier 5K Growth Surge resulted in that change to "no fitness test to enroll" (more realistically named "grow me by 5K by any means possible NOW") which, I believe, was the beginning of the slide and has most probably cost us millions in supporting deadwood.



It also meant that folks were brought in who only met the minimum.  For some tech trades, it's worth holding out for those with higher scores than the bare minimum for the trade - schools are finding more folks being recoursed academically, slowing down personnel production.


----------



## caocao (18 Aug 2013)

Or less just give them as many retest as required to ensure that every complete the course :facepalm:


----------



## Pusser (18 Aug 2013)

One of the reasons we stopped fitness testing before enrolment was because too many folks were failing and we weren't meeting recruiting targets.  At least the way we're doing it now gives a chance to run the fat off of them in BMQ.  In my view, a bigger problem is that we do run the crap out of people on BMQ/BMOQ and then we STOP!  That makes no sense at all to me.  Fitness training should be an everyday, career long part of CF membership.  If we maintained a culture of fitness from Day 1, then we wouldn't need fitness testing at all.


----------



## Monsoon (18 Aug 2013)

caocao said:
			
		

> Or less just give them as many retest as required to ensure that every complete the course :facepalm:


The CF has done a bad job of quantifying the extent to which its training (especially basic training) is not just a way to provide skill instruction, but also about stress inoculation and assessing candidates' abilities to quickly assimilate information and skills while under a degree of pressure. If it takes someone three cracks to pass a course for other than exceptional reasons, you've failed to achieve a key objective of the training. I've never seen any official policy document or course QSP that mentioned these as training deliverables, but anyone who's gone through basic training recognizes that these are a big part of what that training used to be intended to provide.

All that to say that I suspect that this blind spot in the worthwhile push to establish exactly why we provide the training we do is the biggest culprit in lowering in-service standards, rather than in recruitment standards themselves.


----------



## Grimey (18 Aug 2013)

Prior to retirement, I spent two years as Mar Eng senior instructor at CFFSE.  The QL5 failure rate was abysmal, usually in excess of 50%.  I lost track of how many TRBs I sat.

My peers and I couldn't wrap our heads around how a student from 20 yrs ago with less education (with Gr 10 being the norm, and which still is the current minimal entry requirement) had better success in passing a course which was, in the main, harder than it is now.  Also, guys had between 8-10 yrs in before QL5 back then as opposed to the 4-5 currently.

During TRBs I'd leaf through their PERs file starting a the back to locate their HS transcripts.  Most of us around the table had no idea what we where looking at as the course codes being next to impossible to decipher.  Finding something with Math or Physics in the title was like looking for the proverbial needle.

This correlates with which most posters have either said or alluded too:  The dumbing down of national secondary education Has been happening for years.


----------



## Monsoon (18 Aug 2013)

Grimey said:
			
		

> Also, guys had between 8-10 yrs in before QL5 back then as opposed to the 4-5 currently.


You don't think that that's the reason guys are struggling with the course more now? I would have thought platform exposure would be considered a big driver of success on a Journeyman course - especially with ships sailing fewer days now than in the past.


----------



## zulu95 (18 Aug 2013)

IMO part of the problem is the lack of knowledge in young people about how to go about joining the CAF. Since a young age I have been involved in Cadets and dealt with reservists and recruiters on a fairly regular basis but this past year as my friends and I began discussing our plans for after high school I was astounded by the number of them who had no idea that there was even a recruiting center in town much less that the forces had their own recruiting website.
I believe that this lack of publicity by the forces has let many a potentially successful candidate slip past simply because they didn't know how to go about chasing their dream so they instead found another interest leaving room for the fatter recruits motivated by Hollywood ideals to take their place.


----------



## ballz (18 Aug 2013)

zulu95 said:
			
		

> IMO part of the problem is the lack of knowledge in young people about how to go about joining the CAF. Since a young age I have been involved in Cadets and dealt with reservists and recruiters on a fairly regular basis but this past year as my friends and I began discussing our plans for after high school I was astounded by the number of them who had no idea that there was even a recruiting center in town much less that the forces had their own recruiting website.
> I believe that this lack of publicity by the forces has let many a potentially successful candidate slip past simply because they didn't know how to go about chasing their dream so they instead found another interest leaving room for the fatter recruits motivated by Hollywood ideals to take their place.



While a better marketing campaign on TV / movies / during sporting events / etc would certainly attract more attention and bring in a larger talent pool to choose from, I don't buy for a second that its hard for anybody to join or figure out how to join.

I had no idea about the CAF... I was sitting there, like you are now, wondering what I was going to do after high school. I Googled "Canadian Forces" and it brought me to a website.... and then I called the recruiters. It didn't take very much initiative to get the ball rolling, and that's coming from someone who wasn't "chasing a dream" by any stretch...


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> While a better marketing campaign on TV / movies / during sporting events / etc would certainly attract more attention and bring in a larger talent pool to choose from, I don't buy for a second that its hard for anybody to join or figure out how to join.
> 
> I had no idea about the CAF... I was sitting there, like you are now, wondering what I was going to do after high school. I Googled "Canadian Forces" and it brought me to a website.... and then I called the recruiters. It didn't take very much initiative to get the ball rolling, and that's coming from someone who wasn't "chasing a dream" by any stretch...



I do wish to see more media exposure for the CF. Despite budget cuts, there should be a steady stream of TV and Radio commericials, ads in newspapers, that tell our beautiful and vast nation about who we are, what we do, and that we DO want the best and the brightest.


----------



## ballz (18 Aug 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I do wish to see more media exposure for the CF. Despite budget cuts, there should be a steady stream of TV and Radio commericials, ads in newspapers, that tell our beautiful and vast nation about who we are, what we do, and that we DO want the best and the brightest.



No arguments here. The USMC has got it figured out... Piggy-backing off stuff like the UFC, NFL Football, etc...


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> No arguments here. The USMC has got it figured out... Piggy-backing off stuff like the UFC, NFL Football, etc...



When I work for Alberta Health Services, throwing open the Calgary SUN and showing people " this is what we do " REF: flood assistance makes me giddy and always seems to get the hot young nurses wrapped around my finger  ;D


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> No arguments here. The USMC has got it figured out... Piggy-backing off stuff like the UFC, NFL Football, etc...


Like there commercial with the dragon?


----------



## Grimey (19 Aug 2013)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> You don't think that that's the reason guys are struggling with the course more now? I would have thought platform exposure would be considered a big driver of success on a Journeyman course - especially with ships sailing fewer days now than in the past.



Not at all.  Let's play devils advocate and say they have a well rounded academic (math, hard science) last year in high school.  Despite the Mar Eng minimum entry requirement being Gr 10 (with at least one credit being math) the majority have Gr 12, or at least what passes for it nowadays.  The delta for these guys (and occasional gal) between final yr HS and their journeyman course is as short as its ever been.  You'd think they'd have the academics weighed off in that you'd think it be'd fresh in their minds.  If it is, it doesn't manifest itself on course.  It reminds me of Lucy on Peanuts having issues with the "new math".

TBH, there is also a lack of personal drive.  The trade is so short of qualified junior technicians (and the perennial shortage of Cert 3s that seems to have existed since the first CPF floated up or came off of the slip) that course flunkies, providing they've shown the minimal effort, know they'll have a second chance 6-12 months later.  The Mar Eng community as a whole does encourage pre course academic prep and upgrading, albeit half-heartedly.

Platform exposure in no ways prepares students for QL5 and the subjects that claims the most victims:  Math and Machine shop/hand skills.

QL3 isn't much better.  Math was reintroduced a few yrs back, the aim being to stymy the failure rate a handful of yrs down the road when they come back from QL5.  For what is essentially a Gr 8/9 refresher, so-called high school grads couldn't divide fractions or where baffled when trying to solve one unknown in basic equations.

I totally agree with Army Vern.  A 1985 vintage HS grad diploma is todays BA, or BSc for that matter.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2013)

jeremyhalifax88 said:
			
		

> The problem right now is that there is zero incentive to be smarter, more fit and motivated.
> We're not fighting for ranks anymore and you're just pushed up just because they need the position filled.
> Also, you can be a lazy slob that goes and hides all day and you would get paid the same as someone who works their butt off all day and who wants to be there.
> 
> If the military only promoted you for being fit, smart and motivated then you would see a big improvement within the CF.



Nah, if supervisors utilized ICs, RWs and C&Ps IAW already existing policy for the deadwood that you speak of we'd see a big improvement.  If some lazy slob is hiding all day and getting away with it, that's a leadership problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2013)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is loosely related to this topic in that it illustrates the difficulties the CF faces in recruiting and selecting the people it really wants:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/2013-budget/Military+reduce+unattainable+targets+recruitment+women/8803831/story.html


> Military to reduce ‘unattainable’ targets for the recruitment of women, visible minorities
> 
> BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 
> ...




Some people of a certain age will remember a story about the late BGen Don Holmes and a famous message about "fat, ugly women," but that's a different story ...

The fact is that some of the problems that afflict many DND/CF programmes are *not* "self inflicted wounds" at all. They are "wounds" all right, but they are inflicted by the _political/policy centre_ for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the mandate of DND.


----------



## Cbbmtt (19 Aug 2013)

I have never been in a union and I make as much as a corporal does today with only a grade 12 education. However, because it's a sales position there is always a sense of uncertainty for tomorrows pay check. The pension isn't very good with my current company and I don't go home at the end of the day with any pride. I didn't 

If we didn't have recruiters going to trade shows and schools back in 2000 I would of never even thought about the forces. Now it's all I want to do or ever wanted to do.

I'm a little over weight, but I can run and do twice the prerequisites for fitness qualification. Are there a lot of people going to BMQ that can't do 19 push ups???


----------



## MikeL (19 Aug 2013)

Cbbmtt said:
			
		

> Are there a lot of people going to BMQ that can't do 19 push ups???



There are some who go away to BMQ who are not physically ready for it, and have failed the PT test.  Some are kept in, and if they improve/pass the test they join another course.. if they didn't mean the bare minimum to be retained, or are unable to o pass the fitness test after their time in Warrior Platoon they are released from the Canadian Forces.  There are a few posts on the forum from people that were on Warrior Platoon, and some who(or their parents) were released due to not meeting the standard.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Aug 2013)

The problem with a lot of people is that they may be able to crack off 75 push ups, but only 15 count due to form and technique.  Same for sit ups.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The problem with a lot of people is that they may be able to crack off 75 push ups, but only 15 count due to form and technique.  Same for sit ups.



IMO I would rather fight along side someone who can do 75 push ups that PSP wrinkles their nose at than someone who can manage 15 ones, if that makes sense.




			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The CAF does have a lack of "good"  applicants.  One of the issues (which I alluded to earlier), is *the "no one left behind" mindset has worked it's way into CFRG.*  It was EXTREMELY difficult (and frustrating), to convince my supervisors to junk bad applicants (and for sake of clarity I am talking about new applicants, not people looking to rejoin with unfavourable release categories that's a whole different issue).   *Applications that a McDonald's manager would pass on were/are being pushed through * the system,



I think this is a great example of what is wrong with our recruiting.  Our system is bogged down because of this.


----------



## DAA (19 Aug 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nah, if supervisors utilized ICs, RWs and C&Ps IAW already existing policy for the deadwood that you speak of we'd see a big improvement.  If some lazy slob is hiding all day and getting away with it, that's a leadership problem.



Remedial measures may be warranted in some cases but what we are missing, is supervisors rotating people in and out of positions to make them more efficient, productive and knowledgeable of their occupation.  Far too often I have seen sub-performers shuffled from one menial task to another, intentionally overlooked for more progressive/knowledge enhancing jobs and never given the opportunity to do something more challenging, with the core intent of broadening their occupational knowledge to make them better.

Why would I want to try and be "better" when I am only going to be assigned to the same type of task, over and over again?


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Aug 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> *snip
> IMO I would rather fight along side someone who can do 75 push ups that PSP wrinkles their nose at than someone who can manage 15 ones, if that makes sense.  snip*



Agree fully, my point was that they're more hung up on form than function.  NOBODY does perfect push ups after about the 9th "drop and give me 50" of the day.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (19 Aug 2013)

I thought that diversity thing was a myth!? 

Call me crazy but isn't true equality when everyone is held to the same standards. Regardless of sex or race? Do we not want the most qualified people? O sorry I forgot. Our government views us as a social welfare program that they can abuse to further their political agendas.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (19 Aug 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I think this is a great example of what is wrong with our recruiting.  Our system is bogged down because of this.



Seeing comments like these makes me wonder if there are any available statistics related to applicants who drop the recruiting process and/or refuse job offers because they were able to find alternative employment, which met their needs in the mean-time? While I in no way think of myself as being any different than any other 'special snowflakes' out there, I _do_ know that I'm very capable. But it's definitely very difficult waiting 2, 3+ years for a position, as some applicants have. I'm sure some excellent candidates have been lost. While I assume the numbers would be quite low and probably wouldn't greatly affect the issues surrounding the initial article for the better, it's too bad that persons not suitable for the job are holding processes up for others.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2013)

There are not quotas - a quota would be "You must meet this level".  Recruiting had goals - to encourage them to seek out under-represented groups.

With Canadian demographics shifting, it's only common sense for the military to reach out to everyone.  As in many organizations, though, the military tends to go with what's always worked, more or less.  Goals to increase the number og women, visible minorities and aboriginals help steer the CF towards long-term recruiting success.

Note that anyone recruited still has to meet the same standards.  It's not a lowering of standards to get people in; it's looking beyond white, rural Canada for recruits.


----------



## Grimey (19 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are not quotas - a quota would be "You must meet this level".  Recruiting had goals - to encourage them to seek out under-represented groups.
> 
> With Canadian demographics shifting, it's only common sense for the military to reach out to everyone.  As in many organizations, though, the military tends to go with what's always worked, more or less.  Goals to increase the number og women, visible minorities and aboriginals help steer the CF towards long-term recruiting success.
> 
> Note that anyone recruited still has to meet the same standards.  It's not a lowering of standards to get people in; it's looking beyond white, rural Canada for recruits.



Demographics may be changing, but the same people are joining, at least in naval technical occupations.  During the last occupation working group I did a quick "scientific" poll based solely on ID snapshots.  Based on 3 yrs of QL3 intake into Mar Eng over what appeared to be the most concerted recruiting drive in decades, out of 212 students, 3 where female, 4 where from obvious minority groups.

The face of Canada is changing but we are not selling the CF to the people changing it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Aug 2013)

Grimey said:
			
		

> Demographics may be changing, but the same people are joining, at least in naval technical occupations.  During the last occupation working group I did a quick "scientific" poll based solely on ID snapshots.  Based on 3 yrs of QL3 intake into Mar Eng over what appeared to be the most concerted recruiting drive in decades, out of 212 students, 3 where female, 4 where from obvious minority groups.
> 
> The face of Canada is changing but we are not selling the CF to the people changing it.



Similar issues in the UK military with similar percentages: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/military-race


----------



## Grimey (19 Aug 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Similar issues in the UK military with similar percentages: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/military-race



interesting.  I imagine that once the Fijians are factored out the Army stats come more in line with the RAF/RN percentages.  My old man was in 7 RHA during the early 60s during the first Fijian recruiting drive and had one in his troop who, in line with times, was nick named "Chalky". I doubt that would fly nowadays.

Some of those fellas went far (Mirbat and "the balcony").


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Remedial measures may be warranted in some cases but what we are missing, is supervisors rotating people in and out of positions to make them more efficient, productive and knowledgeable of their occupation.  Far too often I have seen sub-performers shuffled from one menial task to another, intentionally overlooked for more progressive/knowledge enhancing jobs and never given the opportunity to do something more challenging, with the core intent of broadening their occupational knowledge to make them better.
> 
> Why would I want to try and be "better" when I am only going to be assigned to the same type of task, over and over again?



As I said, sounds like a leadership issue.  I'm busy as shit here and I still rotate my staff through different Sqns and sections at least once a year.


----------



## Emilio (25 Aug 2013)

I don't understand this thread? I have read on this sight, and spoken with CAF members that jobs in the CAF are very competitive. That only the best applicant will be selected for the few openings which happen every year.


----------



## Pusser (25 Aug 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> I don't understand this thread? I have read on this sight, and spoken with CAF members that jobs in the CAF are very competitive. That only the best applicant will be selected for the few openings which happen every year.



This is true, which makes one shudder to think about the ones we reject (actually we don't reject anyone - they just fail to make it to the top of the list to whom we make offers).

Just because we only recruit the best of those who apply, doesn't mean that the pool of applicants is particularly deep.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Aug 2013)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Just because we only recruit the best of those who apply, doesn't mean that the pool of applicants is particularly deep.



Mile wide and an inch deep.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Mile wide and an inch deep.



I dunno, I've always been impressed by the quality of the 'kids' coming through these days. Thinking back to the 'good old days' when I joined, I find them smarter, more responsible, more worldly and more professionally committed in many ways than me and my peers ever were.

Of course, as a result, it's the leadership that has to step up their game to work with these people, rarely the other way around.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Sep 2013)

They are different.  I don't know if "smarter" is the right phrase though.  They will think through what's being demanded of them and they will question it if it doesn't meet with their sniff test of logic.  They have a better sense of the world and what's going on than many of us did at that age and that might be attributed to the internet with it's instant connectivity around the world to people, events and things.  Kids today do have, however, a higher expectation or sense of entitlement than before.  That may both be due to the instant gratification of today's society and the higher levels of education/life experiences they come to us with.  They expect more from us, sooner, than we did.  If they don't feel fulfilled, they'll leave.  In my present unit we're starting to see a number of releases coming from these kids in the engineering world.  And it's the bright one's not the thuds.


----------



## pbi (6 Sep 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I dunno, I've always been impressed by the quality of the 'kids' coming through these days. Thinking back to the 'good old days' when I joined, I find them smarter, more responsible, more worldly and more professionally committed in many ways than me and my peers ever were.
> 
> Of course, as a result, it's the leadership that has to step up their game to work with these people, rarely the other way around.



I'm getting stale-dated now, but I agree with daftandbarmy here. When I joined the Militia in 1974, I served with  some soldiers who were borderline illiterate (yes, even in the GTA!) and at least three I can think of who were either mildly retarded or had very low IQs.  Then when I transferred to the Regular Army in 1982, and started Regtl duty, I found some of the same kind of people. I don't think these people would even get through the CFRC today.

Contrary to what some people fondly think about the "good old days" (whenever those where...), I don't think that in the kind of Army we have, and considering the kind of missions the Army must be able to do, that there is much room any more for people who can't even finish high school. IMHO in an Army as small as ours every soldier should be a potential NCO, and that is how he should be recruited, trained, and treated. If he has no potential, give him one engagement and then do not "re-up". The old idea that we need a bunch of old soldiers around to run kitshops, work in messes, or in trade pioneers, or hide in QM, is a relic of the past.

That said, I am in full agreement with the idea that this is really a leadership and training challenge. Our Army (like every Army in history) has always had to work with what it got. Just for historical perspective, look at the very low medical and physical condition of many British Army recruits in WWI and WWII: many barely made the physical, largely due to the bad social conditions that so many of them came from.

As far as "working with the clay", my grandfather served in the British Regular Army before, during and after WWI. Although Britain had already had free public education for many years, there was such a high percentage of troopers who were functionally illiterate that the Regiment conducted school classes as part of stables routine. Army school certificates were required for promotion up the ranks. The British Army (hardly a liberal "social laboratory"...) realized that the "clay" was weak and did something about it. Our Army can, too, if senior leadership is actually willing to accept that a problem exists.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Sep 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> As far as "working with the clay", my grandfather served in the British Regular Army before, during and after WWI. Although Britain had already had free public education for many years, there was such a high percentage of troopers who were functionally illiterate that the Regiment conducted school classes as part of stables routine. Army school certificates were required for promotion up the ranks. The British Army (hardly a liberal "social laboratory"...) realized that the "clay" was weak and did something about it. Our Army can, too, if senior leadership is actually willing to accept that a problem exists.



They still do deliver educational upgrading, mainly for ORs, that are requirements for promotion, via these guys/gals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Army_Educational_Corps

I recall working with my NCOs to help them study for their exams, sometimes following patrol debriefs in NI! It's a big deal for them. And I am glad that I didn't have to do their exams, they were pretty tough maths, English tests etc


----------



## Pikache (6 Sep 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I dunno, I've always been impressed by the quality of the 'kids' coming through these days. Thinking back to the 'good old days' when I joined, I find them smarter, more responsible, more worldly and more professionally committed in many ways than me and my peers ever were.
> 
> Of course, as a result, it's the leadership that has to step up their game to work with these people, rarely the other way around.


I'm in general agreement with this post.

Having taught a lot of BMQs, I find that an avg recruit is smart, but has short attention span, generally needs more PT and has a bit of self entitlement attitude (even some of the best ones). Once they learn that army is for real, and that they can't treat their staff like their high school teachers (meaning, no respect), I find a lot of the new recruits to be a pleasure to teach. And after few 'corrective training', they learn teamwork real fast.

Now there are thuds who can't be motivated and lazy and out of shape, and I wish the training system makes it more easy to punt these guys, but such is the military we work in.


----------



## gettingthere (11 Sep 2013)

I'm applying as soon as I can and I'll be in good shape. In addition I'm a white male from a somewhat rural community. I was worried that maybe they wouldn't be accepting new recruits because they have too many. After reading this I'm a little comforted. This is all I've wanted to do as a career and I was worried I wouldn't be accepted. I'm soon hopefully to be training in the infantry and I know I'll be ready mentally and physically.


----------



## Kamikaze1655 (22 Jan 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Plenty of people in the army can calculate the square root of a jar of pickles to seven decimal places, but can't get the lid off.



Well said


----------

