# Older Recruits?



## bossdog (9 Aug 2004)

Maybe it's just my trade, but it seems like the privates that we're getting that are coming off of their 3's are getting older and older with every batch. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just strange to see after all these years of having young privates coming in.


----------



## Sundborg (9 Aug 2004)

The average age of recruits has gone up over the past decade so it should be expected.


----------



## bossdog (9 Aug 2004)

Do you think that has changed the way we try to enforce discipline? Do you think there are higher expectations from older recruits? In my own experience (please keep in mind that this is only my opinion!) the older recruits (40+) have been questioning orders and demanding lower standards.

A few vague examples:

We had a Pte come in and suggested that she be automatically promoted to Cpl based on life experiences. She was stone cold serious about it too. It could just be my crusty attitude but I don't think that a 42 year old who is just figuring what she wants to do with her life should be given anything extra.

Another Pte (39) went on stress leave right after his SQ (which we ran here at the unit) saying that he shouldn't have to perform these ridiculous training sessions at his age.

The trend is becoming greater and greater and it's a little disheartening.

*I am not singling anybody out here and I am not attacking older recruits in general - I'm just stating my personal experiences with a few of ours.*


----------



## canuck101 (9 Aug 2004)

If they can not handle the training then they should not have enlisted.If i join i would be 33 and i know you have to be fit to handle the stuff that they throw at you.  I guess they did not understand what the recruiter told them about life in CF.  they should join the Public Service if they can handle the CF.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2004)

In the navy I find its the opposite..older recruits are more mature and can be trusted to get the job done. They tend to have to be told once and if they don't understand they ask and don't bs their way through like most of the younger recruits these days. Maybe its just different enviroments.


----------



## Marine837M (9 Aug 2004)

The French Foriegn Legion recruit up until the age of 40.
The younger the recruit..., the better it is for the service as they respond to discipline, a lot quicker... and wont question an order.I will say at the age of 40 I suppose some of the training,and bullsh**,they impose would feel pointless to someone of that age.The Army,Navy,or Airforce cannot drop its standards for anybody.
The military system does not recognise age or life experience if you go to it with world and wisely knowledge.The Armed Forces prizes itself on working as a team regardless of Age and the highly trained personell within it.The only experience the military will recognise is (A) Knowledge (B) Military experience.and even then you have to be top dog for it to be recognised.The fact that a 35 year old has come from civvy street and having worked in Macdonalds is of no use to the military system in basic training and serving burgers is no way life experince that the military can draw on.I hope no one has been offended.... but soldiering I feel is a young man or womens game and should be left to such.

Only a view.....no offence.

Marine837M


----------



## Bert (9 Aug 2004)

True, I'd have to agree soldiering is younger persons forte especially the physical 
requirements of the combat arms.  Yet, the military is made up of various trades 
that require technical or specilaized  knowledge and training.  The cost of 
educating a young Private through the initial term of employment is expensive.  
Older recruits in most cases bring education and work experience with them directly
related to the MOC reducing the training time and the money to pay for it.  
There are benefits of recruits young and older.

I'd have to disagree with the generalization that older recruits or more likely to 
argue with orders or respond negatively to discipline.  In my experience, that lies
more in the personalities of the individuals.


----------



## Marine837M (10 Aug 2004)

Bert,

Your last paragraph I totally agree with, I was homing in on the point I suppose that the older you are self discipline should already be there wihin yourself. The fact is that an older recruit should already know what is expected of them rather than having to be told all the time and what is expected should come to that person second nature.
However, I am also under the impression that we all need to be told,ordered or even guided...etc... sometimes, and the orders,advice,requests..etc... should in a perfect military world come to the older recruits a little easier and taken on the chin with a smile...but as the old saying goes..."You cannot teach and old dog new tricks".
It remains, I feel a question of maturity and an understanding of the military....and a mere fact that everyone on a team,unit,or on a recce......Gel together.

Marine837M


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> In the navy I find its the opposite..older recruits are more mature and can be trusted to get the job done. They tend to have to be told once and if they don't understand they ask and don't bs their way through like most of the younger recruits these days. Maybe its just different enviroments.



Just a point...You yourself know that the discipline in the Navy and back here in the Cbt Arms are two completely different things.   What you are experiencing in the Navy today may not be as acceptable back in the Army that you left.

On a slightly different track, but somewhat related, should we be promoting people to the rank of Cpl right off of their TQ3/(or whatever it is now) just so that they can have more 'authority' or respect as is the case now with the MP Trade?  It has had the opposite effect on many, in that they now don't have any respect for a MP Cpl, as they now think he may be a rookie as opposed to an experienced NCM.

GW


----------



## brin11 (10 Aug 2004)

GW,  I think that's a good point.  Although, they've been doing it for years in the UK.  Perhaps some of our resident Brits can tell us their experiences with it.  It would make you wonder how long a Cpl had been around for.

What would the rate of promotion be now for MPs?  Would you not expect any promotion (MCpl) for 7+ years?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Aug 2004)

George while I am sure it happens in the navy, my point is I have never seen an older recruit act in the manner that Jimmy listed above iun fact its always been the opposite.


----------



## bossdog (10 Aug 2004)

Hopefully it's just a case of a few bad apples. Now that I think of it, we do get a few younger privates that didn't have their piss and vinegar strained out in basic but they are easier to sort out - they don't go running to the spiritual warfare department everytime they don't get their way.


----------



## Marine837M (10 Aug 2004)

Spiritual warfare department....very good...I like that and will remember it...fantastic...ha.ha.ha.ha.


----------



## mdh (16 Aug 2004)

This is an interesting topic, and I suspect that militaries all over the western world are facing one of their most daunting challenges - demographics.   

The reality is that there is a smaller and smaller pool of 19 and 20 year olds to draw from.   I think the CF recognizes this which is one of the reasons why it recently highlighted an article about older recruits in the Maple Leaf.   Opening up the age limits on certain trades may be more than just a "human rights issue" - it may be another important source of future manpower. This is only going to get worse with time and I would be interested to see if the UK and US recruiting establishments are facing the same kinds of demographic pressure.

The question is can older recruits be as effective in the field as younger ones? Of course it probably depends on the environment.   Older recruits may have trouble in the combat arms, but may be better suited to non-combat trades.   On the other hand there are some very physically capable older recruits in their 30 & 40s.   

We've heard a lot of anecdotal stuff on this site about older soldiers, but I suspect that the CF has little hard evidence that points to a definitive answer either way, and that this is still uncharted territory.   Certainly our social attitudes about aging are changing rapidly as the demographic reality hits us head-on.   

I am somewhat conflicted on the issue myself.   I think it's wholly appropriate to have older guys/gals in the reserve force in combat arms (and I wish we had more of them to provide more stable leadership) but I'm less sure about it in the regular force combat arms.   In the sea and air elements I don't see it as an issue - and as Ex-Dragoon points out, it could be an advantage. 

Overall, I suppose it could be something a red herring anyway since I doubt many recruits in their late 30s/40s/50s are really flocking to the CFRC to sign up for the CF and as a percentage of total intake they are still quite small.


----------



## Bert (18 Aug 2004)

MDH
" I think it's wholly appropriate to have older guys/gals in the reserve force in combat arms 
(and I wish we had more of them to provide more stable leadership) but I'm less sure about
 it in the regular force combat arms."

Reading the past posts, I think Ex-Dragoon was being general about the military and not specific to the
combat arms.  We don't have recruitment statistics exactly to show the ages of recruits and their
MOCs of choice.

Another thing to consider is military demographics as MDH wrote.  During the 1980s and into the 1990s, the
government brought in policies that allowed a downsizing of the military.  The senior ranks were
affected greatly and knowledgable people left leaving many MOCs.  These MOCs later would
be reduced to critical levels.  In a recruitment campaigne starting in 2001 I believe, the military 
focused on acquiring trades people, various technicians, IT professionals, and medical professionals 
for Army, Navy and Air.

One demographic type they were seeking from 2001 to 2004 were educated/skilled people to
fill certain NCO and Officer MOCs.  Recruits with university or college education and work experience 
(and therefore typically older) would help fill the knowledge void created by the military downsizing.
It is hoped they'll continue with a career in the Forces and maintain the knowledge base.

Since 2004, the critical MOCs are filling up and people are in the training system.  The Forces will
likely look at or focus on other demographics as new challenges are forecasted or appear.  The
typical charateristics of the recruit including age changes from decade to decade.


----------



## CF104Starfighter (19 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> In the navy I find its the opposite..older recruits are more mature and can be trusted to get the job done. They tend to have to be told once and if they don't understand they ask and don't bs their way through like most of the younger recruits these days. Maybe its just different enviroments.


Hmm...Just as an example...My sister's 20 years old, and she just finished BOTC.  She did quite well, in fact, she did better than a previously serving CF member who was in her late 20's to early 30's.  I'm not undermining you, just saying that the generalization you've made is unfair.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Aug 2004)

Well since I haven't done BOTC with your sister (or any other BOTC) and have worked with both younger and older newbies the statement is very fair its what I have seen since I remustered to the navy in '94 time and time again.


----------



## mdh (19 Aug 2004)

Hello Bert and Ex-Dragoon,

Excellent points raised - but I am curious about Bert's comments regarding the CFRG switching its emphasis to another demographic at another time.   Is this a realistic prospect?

The only future swing I can foresee would be another drive to push down the age bracket to younger recruits, but we still have that demographic issue at play.   

Increased immigration might be a solution over the long run - but (as been pointed out in this forum before), that can be a tough sell to some cultures who may view the military as an instrument of state repression rather than a more progressive institution offering great career paths.

Again it would be interesting to see if the US or UK is facing a similar issue.     Any Brits out there care to comment?

CF104Starfighter,

Not sure what point you are making but it doesnt' obviate Ex-Dragoon's decade's worth of personal observations. Since I'm something of an old recruit myself I have an instinctive sympathy with the wizened and grizzled. 8)


----------



## Bert (19 Aug 2004)

"Excellent points raised - but I am curious about Bert's comments regarding the 
CFRG switching its emphasis to another demographic at another time.   Is this a 
realistic prospect?"

First of all, I cannot speak for the CF or the CFRC.   The information I used making 
the statement was from the CFRC during my application process, news from
the media over the years 2001 to 2004, and comments from CF members.

My interpretation of this is like a hockey team.     The CF or a military in
general can be described as the mass use of manpower and equipment as
an organization focused on objectives as directed by governing body.   Like a 
hockey team, you want to recruit the skill sets, the knowledge, the ability,
in order to make it all work.   Over a duration of time, the CF may need
a characteristic demographics like medical education to fill shortages of 
doctors, nurses, or technicians or aircraft mechanics as what happened in
the last few years.   Just speculating, the future may show the CF deficient
in another demographic and they may have to recruit to get numbers up.  

You may want to check out past news items in the Maple Leaf or on the
CF recruiting www site and get on context on recruiting strategies.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (19 Aug 2004)

In my opinion older recruits entering the system is generally not a healthy thing. I spent half my time in at one end or the other of the fighting machine. This was not an issue at the pointy end but seems to be a bit more prevalent in the not so pointy end. In peace time the rigours of hard tactical training (exercises with combat arms and not the "hard" St-Jean 7 days in the field) can be very taxing on soldiers. The younger and more fit you are the easier it is to carry on after 4-5 days of little sleep and comfort. After 6-7 days the body begins to break down. A young hard charger can make it through these gruelling trials whereas the older privates and cpls have a bit harder go.

War fighting and its demands go without saying. As expected they are much more intensified.

Now, I really do understand certain circumstances such as life's trial and tribulations will allow older people to dig down and bash on   (look at some of the worlds top athletes such as Ironman competitors, marathon runners and Tour de France. Here in the Forces there is an older Patricia in 1 Bde who won several Mountain man competitions and is in his 30's.

This is just touching the physical aspect. I believe that your average 18-23 year old recruit is best suited for the molding that is a crucial factor in the military training system. They are still very immature (not in the bad way) and require leadership and mentors to replace their parents that they just left. A tremendous amount of psychological influence is (or should be) exercised by his new found mentors and his mind and personality is most flexible at this early stage in adulthood. 
Now in your older recruit, this person has already gone through this stage and is a bit   more rigid in their thinking and outlook, some are even ossified. However, I think that they might be more ready mentally for the head games that accompany earlier training as the big bad instructors don't seem like the bogeyman that they did to me as a 19 yr old recruit. If all war could be won mentally then this is not a problem.

But they aren't. They are being fought in sweltering, dusty, hot, scorching, crappy, stinky places with very very few creature comforts. 

Having said this I am sure that there will be incoming from several folks. I'll take it and smile. Here is a little peace offering to them in the form of humour. It's something I saw on another site ref sending old men to war.
http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=78919038&f=828197221&m=895107561

Slainte,


edited by Paddy the bog trottin mic due to grammatical error.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Aug 2004)

Oh I totally agree that for combat arms young is the way to go but air force and navy trades I feel being an older recruit has its advantages as well.


----------



## mdh (20 Aug 2004)

I think we all agree that younger recruits are best suited to the rigours of the combat arms (at least from a physical standpoint).  But I think there's a bigger question here.

The average age of a CF recruit was actually closer to 25 than 23 in 2003. If that trend continues - which is likely - then the CF could be faced with serious manpower issues within ten years when demographic pressures, combined with the usual retention/retirement issues, private sector competition, etc., impacts directly on unit strength, leadership, and potentially, unit cohesion.  

I don't think there is any "solution" to the problem, but we may well be seeing a new phenomenon in our midst - "a graying military" which stands in stark contrast to the more traditional youthful militaries of the past. 

This may not be a bad thing in some respects.  Recently there was a post here on this forum from a member of the British REME (if memory serves) asking about transferring to the CF because he was due for mandatory retirement at 40.  Considering the substantial investment in that soldier - along with the experience - I'm not sure those kinds of policies make much sense any more.


----------



## Bograt (20 Aug 2004)

I may be speaking out of my ass, but I will be enlisting under the DEO program for the January BOTC course. I am 31. I didn't think I was old until I started reading some of these posts.
<i>In my opinion older recruits entering the system is generally not a healthy thing. I spent half my time in at one end or the other of the fighting machine. This was not an issue at the pointy end but seems to be a bit more prevalent in the not so pointy end. In peace time the rigours of hard tactical training (exercises with combat arms and not the "hard" St-Jean 7 days in the field) can be very taxing on soldiers. The younger and more fit you are the easier it is to carry on after 4-5 days of little sleep and comfort. After 6-7 days the body begins to break down. A young hard charger can make it through these gruelling trials whereas the older privates and cpls have a bit harder go.</i>


May I ask a retorical quation? Is it a question of age or fitness? I would suspect the latter. I am sure that "grizzled" veterans can still take the young ones to school.

I know it will be hard. I am preparing for that. Don't judge me because I have a "couple of grey hairs." Hopefully I'll be able to offer  something as well.


----------



## RCA (20 Aug 2004)

Admittedly, the combat arms (particularly the inf) is a young man's game. However the question is more general. And I say that older recruits are easier to train (however there is a proviso, with about age 40 being pretty well top out for a recruit) because of their life experiences and maturity. 

The only thing younger recruits have is fitness (and this is not always true). However, it is like the turtle and the hare. Younger recruits are good a spurts, but haven't leaned to pace themselves. Older recruits tend to have more stamina. So at the end of 4-5 days the older ones are still going, while the youngrer ones are dragging ass. And yes I have seen it countless times. 

They also tend to be better  listeners, and are willing to help out others, or seek help themselves. In other words they also have humility. If you have a group of recruits given a task, and leave it up to them, 9 times out of 10 the older recruit will a imformally step up and take charge.

However there are exceptions to ever rule, and these are very general statements.

Also, so I have a point of reference, what is considered older?


----------



## mdh (20 Aug 2004)

Hello Bograt,

I think Padraig was really focusing on combat arms - which is the most physically demanding of the Army MOCs - and there's no doubt that biological deterioration is destiny for all of us. 

But while I agree with his basic premiss, I think it's a more complicated.   While it's true that wars are heck, even the US military has acknowledged that its combat troops in Iraq require more than mere youth/ physical fitness, they need maturity and judgment in dealing with local populations in an alien culture - something older troops are far better able to manage. 

As for the Air Force, congratulations on being selected. Personally, I think 31 is a great age to start pilot training. 

I got my private licence in my late 30s, and at our flight school the best student pilots tended to be older guys. It's interesting, though, because this forum debate about recruits parallels the same debate you often hear in aviation: who makes a better pilot? the younger or older student? - Well, in my estimation younger guys may have better reflexes (maybe), but older guys have maturity and judgment -two elements that are critical in the safe operation of an aircraft in an environment where there is very little room for error.

Although my demented scribblling may not have succeeded, I wanted to keep this discussion at a more general level about manpower issues. 

I think that fundamentally it doesn't matter what age (within reason) you are - as long as the CF gives you the opportunity, and you meet the training standards (and they are not altered for the sake of expendiency), then age is only one factor in producing good personnel - even in the combat arms. 

Cheers 
mdh


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (20 Aug 2004)

The grizzled veterans can indeed take some of the hard chargers to school but only because they were young hard chargers themselves at one stage. A 40 something WO with a full combat load pulling away from you can be serious motivation indeed. I remember being young, full of piss and vinegar and absolutely floored at the fitness levels of the training NCO's!! Back in the day...some of those hard mothers just about killed me :crybaby: Some of them today in their 60's are still sharp looking Royals! :-*

The one point about age is simple...recovery time! Days to weeks to months to "I remember back in (insert date) when I permanently screwed my (insert bodypart). :skull:

Tough to zero efficiently with bi-focals too!


----------



## Bert (21 Aug 2004)

Everyone has made good points and you can look at the topic from various
perspectives.  

At the beginning, the thread didn't state whether the age issue was related only to
the combat arms or the support trades, or whether its common to all elements.
Age, attitude, fitness, and knowledge all play key roles in all MOCs and elements.

Looking at it from an overall point of view, its difficult to compare the combat arms like 
infantry in the Army to a support trade like an aviation systems technician in the 
Air Force.  The training focus, training schedules, exercises, deployment readiness 
focus, are very much different.  Physical fitness is important eveywhere but more
so in the combat arms and they train for it. The aviation systems technician as
an example may train more on flight-line readiness, rapid deployments and load-outs, 
emergency repairs, or fire and rescue procedures.  Age is not a critical issue in
the support MOCs but I don't have experience in the combat arms to say otherwise.
Ability through knowledge, physical aptitude, and atitude is essential.


----------



## CF104Starfighter (30 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well since I haven't done BOTC with your sister (or any other BOTC) and have worked with both younger and older newbies the statement is very fair its what I have seen since I remustered to the navy in '94 time and time again.


I really don't see why you guys have to be such dinks about this.  I was simply providing an example and all of a sudden I'm told that my example or opinion doesn't count because I'm not a member of the CF?  No offence, but this site is not very welcoming to "outisders".  For all your "wisdom" and "veterinary status" you're not very warm to people interested in following in your path.  I even said I was not trying to undermine you.  Even though many (Most) of you probably won't care, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not I should continue posting on here, because it seems that whenever I give an opinion, example, or question, I'm told in kinder words to shut up because I'm 16 and not in the military.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Aug 2004)

CF104Starfighter said:
			
		

> I really don't see why you guys have to be such dinks about this.   I was simply providing an example and all of a sudden I'm told that my example or opinion doesn't count because I'm not a member of the CF?   No offence, but this site is not very welcoming to "outisders".   For all your "wisdom" and "veterinary status" you're not very warm to people interested in following in your path.   I even said I was not trying to undermine you.   Even though many (Most) of you probably won't care, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not I should continue posting on here, because it seems that whenever I give an opinion, example, or question, I'm told in kinder words to shut up because I'm 16 and not in the military.



Hold on there junior! You are the one thats taken offence not us. Your sister is just in and yet you base your argument on her experience at the beginning of her career. Come on now man, most here have a few years in and I think have a few more experiences in this area then your sister and you using the basis of your ire. Had you bothered reading what others had said you would see opinions very from pro or against older recruits. No where did anyone say your opinion was not welcomed and no where did anyone bring up the fact you were not in the CF in this discussion. As for other discussions its up to you to figure out why you may have been told to do a search or whatever. As for having veterinary status can't say I do. I am a sailor I don't work on animals...hmm wait a minute, I wil have to get back to you on that one. CF104 I have one piece of advice for you, grow a thicker skin.


----------



## CF104Starfighter (31 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Hold on there junior! You are the one thats taken offence not us. Your sister is just in and yet you base your argument on her experience at the beginning of her career. Come on now man, most here have a few years in and I think have a few more experiences in this area then your sister and you using the basis of your ire. Had you bothered reading what others had said you would see opinions very from pro or against older recruits. No where did anyone say your opinion was not welcomed and no where did anyone bring up the fact you were not in the CF in this discussion. As for other discussions its up to you to figure out why you may have been told to do a search or whatever. As for having veterinary status can't say I do. I am a sailor I don't work on animals...hmm wait a minute, I wil have to get back to you on that one. CF104 I have one piece of advice for you, grow a thicker skin.


Saying hold on there junior is exactly what I'm talking about.  Are you illiterate?  I already said that I've taken offence.  Not only is my sister in, but my mom is also, and my dad is retired.  And perhaps I'm just an army brat, but my parents have a bit more experience than you, or many of the people on this forum do.  No, you did not say my opinion was not welcomed directly, but it's been implied.  Lots.  And I wasn't just basing this argument off of this thread.  Sorry if I did not clarify that for you.  I've never been told to do a search, and I really don't know where you got that from.  I do have a thick skin, I just don't appreciate it when someone's giving me smart-ass, generalized replies when I don't deserve them.  I understand that you've have problems with newer people before, but I really don't see what I've done to provoke you.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Aug 2004)

CF104Starfighter said:
			
		

> Saying hold on there junior is exactly what I'm talking about.  Are you illiterate?  I already said that I've taken offence.  Not only is my sister in, but my mom is also, and my dad is retired.  And perhaps I'm just an army brat, but my parents have a bit more experience than you, or many of the people on this forum do.  No, you did not say my opinion was not welcomed directly, but it's been implied.  Lots.  And I wasn't just basing this argument off of this thread.  Sorry if I did not clarify that for you.  I've never been told to do a search, and I really don't know where you got that from.  I do have a thick skin, I just don't appreciate it when someone's giving me smart-***, generalized replies when I don't deserve them.  I understand that you've have problems with newer people before, but I really don't see what I've done to provoke you.



  Don't like to be called junior then don't call us dinks for some of us not agreeing with your views. If you read back carefully and I do suggest you read back, this discussion from all sides raised some good points. The points that were disagreed upon were brought up and for the most part settled. You coming in all defensive does little to help your point. If anything it reinforces my opinion why I prefer older recruits to younger because most (not all) act the exact same way as you have. You know how many times I (and I am sure many other people here) have watched their senior NCOs gleefully rub their hands when a young recruit makes comments like "well when I was in cadets" "My brother/sister who is in ***** said its done this way". I have yet to hear someone older say that. Calling me illiterate? Well you better make sure your grammar, punctuation and spelling is perfect from here on out. Ironic considering awhile back because you brought up the fact that someone made some spelling and punctuation mistakes.
  I have noticed when an argument goes bad for you the "I am only 16" trump comes up. Sorry that will only cut you so much slack and you have overplayed it. 
  My father, grandfather and a whole slew of uncles are handymen. I would never dare to presume to argue with someone about putting something together or repairing something based on my family members experience which is what you have done bringing up yours. Again you are welcome to your opinion but its best if its your opinion based on your experiences and not those of your parents or sister. You have mentioned you are a lifeguard in previous threads, you would not like me to tell you how to do your job based upon what I have read or what other lifeguards have told me now would you? Picture being in a lifeguard forum and have someone come across like you have. 
  *why you may have been told to do a search or whatever  * You might have not have been told to do a search if you look carefully I enclosed a "or whatever" as well. Look way back and you will see people like Infanteer and several others giving you advice. Maybe you should take it, read what you have posted over the past and determine why you received the reaction you did. Read through the FAQs and guidelines for the forum.


----------



## bossdog (1 Sep 2004)

LOL! WHABAM! :warstory:


----------



## Sigs (1 Sep 2004)

I am at the school teaching to Sigs, so far i've noticed that if they are 18 or 35 we have to treat them the same, i.e. take them by the hand because they have no clue. Some older ones do have attitude, but at the same time they do bring mostly good behaviour. The big thing that I've noticed is that the problems are a hell of a lot bigger because most of them are married with kids. When I joined we were ALL too young to be married...especially have kids. I also noticed that the physical standard dropped big time...19 year olds can't keep up with 30 semi year olds.


----------



## bossdog (3 Sep 2004)

Sigs! I'm surprised to hear that the younger recruits are having a harder time at keeping up with the older recruits. Something must happen between what I assume to be CFSCE and here because it's our older recruits that are falling apart. Well, more than our young recruits.

I remember my old Seargent Major, if you were even on a 2 day chit for a sprained ankle he would tear you a part on parade, now it seems to be SOP to verify all the chits before PT in a more corporate manner.

The fear as a new private that was delivered from our old SSM was half the motivation in the "drive the body" attitude that most of us can still hang on to.


----------



## Great Harveney (7 Oct 2004)

I'm a young Pte in the reserves and I notice i am they youngest in my unit (that i have seen).
I also find that not a lot of people want to join the military cause they tell me its too strict or that they don't want to ruin their body in the futare. I talk to friends who once wanted to join the military and they tell me that it wont help them in life and that they get this stereotypical image of that you have to be BIG and BUFF and tend to be not too bright.

Also the main thing, the discipline. You go to a school and you see that nobody has any. I wish i could see many of the people at my school go to a BIQ or even a BMQ and see what they do. >

Most young people try to coast threw life at this stage and cant be bothered to work for "the man".

P.S. also in the reserves over half of the young Pte's i do see are only there for the university funds or w/e you want to call them and say that they are gonna leave after university. :-\

GreatH


----------



## Blindspot (8 Oct 2004)

Great Harveney,

I had joined up when I was a shy, out of shape kid in high-school at about your age. I received scorn and ridicule from my peers. Even my friends believed their tours as youth camp counsellors was infinately more worthwhile. Some even referred to me as "baby-killer" and I recall that being particularily hurtful at the time. I can look back and probably attribute that kind of abuse and negativity to teenage jealousy. I mean what were they going to do during the summer: hang out at the 7-11 or at best, watch over kids and hit on female counsellors?

When I returned from my summer courses, I had changed immeasurably. My grades improved, I had moved to the top of my phys ed class, I understood the benefit of teamwork, I became more socially inclined and most importantly, I had developed a 'never give up' attitude. I indeed felt superior physically and mentally to those around me. It has always been my opinion since that there's no greater character builder than the armed forces as I watched my nephew go through the same changes. It was by far my greatest life defining experience.

I hope to return soon as an older recruit.


----------



## dglad (8 Oct 2004)

As in most aspects of life, age isn't really all that important, unless you're talking about extremes (the VERY young and the VERY old obviously have very real age-related issues).  More vital, to me, is what one does with one's life experience.  I have, frankly, worked with older recruits who have been complete thuds, and with just-old-enough-to-join youngsters who have been sharp, dedicated and capable soldiers.

Having said that, the one area where I believe the Reserves benefit from older recruits is its officer cadre.  Younger officers--especially those in university--have a tendency to move on when finished school, often even leaving the army altogether (not surprising, since they're launching themselves into a brand new career and often don't have the time or energy to commit to the Reserves).  I find that older officer candidates tend to have more staying power, especially if they're married, have full-time jobs and are settled.  As long as they're fit enough, and are prepared to sacrifice vacation to attend courses (or have an employer with a military leave policy), they can be very successful as 25-30 year old (or even older) Lts.  They have the added benefit of representing true depth to the unit's leadership succession, since a 30 year old Lt can easily look at being a 45 or 50 year old CO.  Unfortunately, we seem to go through a lot of 20 year old Lts for every one that makes it to the senior officer ranks.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

I support dglad here. It really is about the abilities of the individual. I have certainly seen both examples that dglad refers to, and although I think the younger recruit makes a better bargain over all, the mature individual cannot be dismissed out of hand. The people of Canada who choose to pursue the profession of arms, Regular or Reserve, are already well out of the ordinary as considered against the mainstream of the population. What we need to do is set standards and make sure people meet them, regardless of age, sex, etc. Cheers.


----------



## Gouki (2 Mar 2006)

As a 34 year old recruit, now a Dragoon I must say that I have never had a problem with the fitness in the military in fact, I noticed since I have been in that the younger people are more out of shape then I had ever imagined.  It must be the computer games and low fat potato chips the kids are eating.  I've seen a lot of young guys that do nothing but whine about doing PT, I also see young men & women that have discipline issues exspecially the simple things like just cleaning up after themself.  I don't think the physical fitness is a age problem I think its a lot of peoples problem.  I say get off the damn computer and reading about working out and combat training and do it.  

Thanks for listening to the Old Man.


----------

