Navy again lowers requirements as it struggles to meet recruitment goals

https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2024-01-26/navy-lowers-education-requirements-recruitment-struggles-12806279.html

by luu • 2 years ago

36 74 2 years ago

Good enough for stubbing the rust off and cleaning the toilets I suppose.

"Research has consistently found lower cognitive ability to be related to increased risk for violent and other antisocial behaviour" [1].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404054/

vasilipupkin• 2 years ago

this is true, but even these results show that vast majority, even at the lowest level of ability, don't commit violent crimes.

ok_dad4• 2 years ago

Deck division does that work, and also runs the majority of special ops (not specops like the seals, just non-regular stuff) at sea so you don’t want the dumbest guys to flood the division, though that’s quite common.

ern• 2 years ago

the difference hasn’t been significant so far for the low-scoring recruits brought in last year. Overall, 11.4% of those recruits didn’t finish boot camp, compared to less than 6.5% of the high-scoring sailors.

I was watching a documentary about US Navy boot camp, and was wondering if people who are headed for in-demand roles are given more help/slack than generalists? There was someone with a college degree who was going to intelligence, and I doubted they'd be dumped as easily as someone who just scraped their way in.

ok_dad4• 2 years ago

No, I was a nuke coming into the navy, the hardest to recruit supposedly, and I was treated perhaps worse for it, but definitely no better. Boot camp is the same for all.

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

You could have a cs degree working in cyber security and they still make you do the same bootcamp. If you get in through college programs you do the same playing soldier in the woods at your local base once a month thing too. If you join the marines the hazing/bs you put up with is certainly worse both in bootcamp and in terms of the routine monthly drill.

warner254• 2 years ago

I can't speak specifically for the Navy, but as an Army officer I've been part of the pipeline that turns recruits into air traffic controllers, which is a pretty in-demand role. [I've also been part of the pipeline that turns college students into officers and pilots, but they don't go through "boot camp" in the same sense that enlisted members do.]

Your intuition is sort of correct, but sort of backwards. First, someone who qualifies for an in-demand role is less likely than most recruits to wash out because they are more qualified than the average recruit to begin with. Second, if someone fails along the way to becoming an air traffic controller or linguist or some other difficult job, there are a lot of other jobs that they can step down to and handle with ease. So we'd say, "Hey, you didn't make it, but this is a tough program so there's no shame in that, and here's another program that we can send you to do instead, if you want." On the other hand, if someone signs up to be a shower and laundry specialist (yes, that's a real job) and they fail in that program, we probably don't have much else that they'd qualify for, so they might be out of luck no matter how much they want to stay in uniform.

Edited to add: Of course, "boot camp" is "boot camp" for everyone, (mostly) regardless of the specialty that they signed up for. I'm mostly speaking above about the second stage of training.

thewildginger2• 2 years ago

These numbers are for enlisted recruits. To wash out of basic training/boot camp and be enlisted there has to be serious problems. Bed wetting, serious violence, egregious disciplinary problems or major integrity violations, Maybe being overweight or failing physical standards at the very beginning / end of training. With most of these things you just get rolled back and stay longer in training. The most common drops are early, often for integrity problems like lying to a recruiter about a criminal past or failing the initial drug test. After that if a person is kicked out of recruit training it's for the issues mentioned above and there doesn't seem to be any "fixing it"

These decisions are made by training commanders pretty much on a case by case basis, often with the armed service's needs in mind. Everyone who's at enlisted basic training is needed, because it's about volume.

warner254• 2 years ago

I'll underscore this point. Basic training is not hard, and we really want people to pass. Like you said, if someone really wants to be there, we'll typically work with them for as long as necessary to get them through... second and third chances, for sure, with instructors practically holding their hand. Like I said in my other comment, if someone just couldn't handle tough academics, we found an easier job for them. When I actually separated people from the Army and sent them back to civilian life, it was usually a mutual decision.

TheBlight• 2 years ago

I wonder if they have considered granting citizenship to non-citizen enlistees who go on to complete a standard 4 years of service (or whatever it is.)

0823498723498722• 2 years ago

They're doing their part. Are you? Join the Mobile Infantry and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship. — EN

NikolaNovak• 2 years ago

Starship Troopers rises again in 21st century :)

I enjoy the thought experiment immensely even if I disagree with the result / interpretation; I end up rereading the book every 3-5 years.

procrastitron• 2 years ago

That’s already been a thing for several decades: https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-milita...

JumpCrisscross4• 2 years ago

already been a thing for several decades

You have to "be a lawful permanent resident at the time of your naturalization interview" [1]. (On the other hand, you're eligible if "you served honorably in the U.S. armed forces for at least one year at any time.")

Proposal is that anyone can enlist, e.g. at the border.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-milita...

otoburb2• 2 years ago

I thought one of the eligibility requirements to be recruited was either US citizenship or permanent residence.[1]

[1] https://www.goarmy.com/how-to-join/requirements.html

JumpCrisscross4• 2 years ago

citizenship to non-citizen enlistees

This is a great proposal that could break the logjam on immigration reform.

fbdab103• 2 years ago

I am incredibly curious how this would fare politically in today's climate.

otoburb2• 2 years ago

Similar to the French Foreign Legion where one can request citizenship through naturalization after 3 years of service[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion

phone8675309• 2 years ago

No better way to teach immigrants about the warlike nature of Americans than putting them through four years of combat in a forever war somewhere in the middle east or asia.

micromacrofoot2• 2 years ago

most people would continue coming in illegally

0823498723498722• 2 years ago

cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system#:~:t...

hunglee24• 2 years ago

This is a good move - academic qualifications are an inadequate proxy for the skills and mentality needed to succeed in combat roles. Just look at the enemies that the US has fought over the decades - rice paddy farmers in Vietnam, illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan - all were formidable opponents who fought the US to a standstill, likely with a single SAT between them.

conformist2• 2 years ago

While this might well be correct, the argument is missing that academic qualifications conditional on growing up in the US (as supposed to in Afghanistan) are still a proxy for potentially useful skills. In other words, some of the enemies might have had comparable academic qualifications had they grown up in the US.

hunglee24• 2 years ago

fair comment - thanks

Supermancho• 2 years ago

are still a proxy for potentially useful skills.

This is tautological. It's a good measure because it's a good (proxy) measure. This is not a truism, stated this way.

In other words, some of the enemies might have had comparable academic qualifications had they grown up in the US.

Maybe they would have all been geniuses. This is a wild guess about what intelligence/behavior results in superior combat troops, on average.

paulpauper• 2 years ago

I disagree, as does the DOD. Smarter troops do their jobs better, such as better accuracy and faster trainability, and making better inferences. This is what the AFQT , ASVB shows based on decades of data among hundreds of thousands of recruits. Less intelligent recruits are a burden, which is why they are not recruited except during shortages during war time, and only sparingly.

Even if no GED/diploma req., they still must pass the AFQT and related tests

hunglee24• 2 years ago

"Smarter troops do their jobs better"

agree with this but academic qualifications do not map to being smart. There are different ways in which intelligence can be measured, I am sure the DOD will be using more effective measures to replace the education qualifications

pseudo0• 2 years ago

From the article:

The decision follows a move in December 2022 to bring in a larger number of recruits who score very low on the Armed Services Qualification Test.

It sounds like they really are just scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Navy is not a competitive employer right now given the ops tempo, living in close quarters on a ship, and poor compensation. Even for those who are inclined to join the military, why pick the Navy over the Air Force?

ok_dad4• 2 years ago

Very much agree. One of my best sailors was an E-3 Seaman who was dropped from electronic tech training for a DUI and became an undesignated seaman, the worst job you can get in the navy. He was better at certain things than the chief who’s been doing them for years but wasn’t the sharpest tool (he was awesome, I feel bad saying it). I ended up recommending he be reintroduced to the electronic tech program but he loved being in the deck division and ended up becoming a boatswains mate. I bet he was the best damn BM ever too.

FrustratedMonky• 2 years ago

Have they tried higher pay?

I think reducing qualifications is bad move.

Sure, we've seen some pretty funny videos of how idiotic the enemies can be, that isn't a good argument for saying our soldiers can be just as idiotic.

To win we should be better. Smarter.

wharvle2• 2 years ago

Kind... of. Both won by having enormously higher stakes and will to fight. Plus a ton of foreign aid. And neighboring friendly or at least too-disorganized-to-resist countries the US was reluctant (but not always wholly unwilling) to engage.

Both got badly stomped on a sheer damage-and-casualties-inflicted front, but didn't give up and had relatively safe space to retreat into and carry on logistics through (and foreign aid) that kept them from being counted out no matter how many times we punched them. But they were getting punched a lot, and hard, and weren't landing a ton of blows in return.

If one expects to be on the historical US side of an encounter like that, it's not clear to me that shifting to less-educated troops is going to help. The current approach kicks absolute ass—from a sheer military perspective. Especially against non-modern militaries (and there are very few fully modern ones—the training and equipment requirements to field a modern army are immense, expensive, and require a level of delegation of power that many kinds of states can't securely achieve). Uneducated farmers may have won those fights (while doing a hell of a lot of dying, and delivering rather poor damage in return) but I don't think it follows that the US military would be well-served by poorly-educated soldiers.

hunglee24• 2 years ago

actually agree with everything you've said - aside from the last line. Educated is hugely over rated for the vast majority of combat work. Look at Ukraine / Russia - which has devolved into an attritional battle of conscript soldiers, many of whom are educated but uselessly so.

This is a matter of trade offs. 1 for 1 an educated soldier is probably better than an uneducated one. But when you factor in the cost of educating that soldier, then spending resources in assessing against skills developed in educational setting, you are probably better off just opening the doors and taking the rough with the smooth

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

You arent comparing like for like you are comparing a guerrilla soldier to a trained professional. I’d imagine if the US switched to that sort of doctrine we wouldn’t have the totally lopsided casualty counts we’ve had in recent conflicts.

Geisterde• 2 years ago

Most people in the navy dont perform combat roles, most people are processing radar contacts, doing maintenance on highly sophisticated fighter jets, reprogramming radios, managing extremely dangerous fluid systems, operating an extremely high performance nuclear reactor. The doctrine the navy operates under necessitates a highly technically adept and well coordinated crews on several ships, anyone aboard that isnt qualified to be there is a threat to themselves and everyone around them.

Were this a hypothetical matter we could speculate what might happen if we lowered the standards; however, I will point out that the state of todays navy is that sometimes young airmen get cut in half by aircraft arresting cables, sometimes navy ships crash into cargo vessels, most maintenance hasnt been done to standard sometimes for over a decade, sometimes people fry the reactor plant control console. It would be difficult to argue in that light that we should lower the standards, I would instead propose some combination of the following -raise the pay to attract qualified candidates -shrink the responsibility of the navy, congress sets the op-tempo -increased use of drones specifically, the navy has a proven track record of not keeping up with industrial automation and it is unreasonable to expect that to change given command structural doctrine, but drones can be fully self contained weapon systems that are installed onboard simply

bhickey• 2 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000

thedailymail• 2 years ago

Lowering the recruitment bar was tried during the Vietnam War - it didn't end well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100%2C000

throwup238• 2 years ago

Is this was caused the epidemic of fragging [1] too?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

warner254• 2 years ago

You don't have to go back that far. The Army, at least, lowered the bar in all kinds of ways circa 2006-2010. It went badly enough that senior Army leaders, in the midst of the current recruiting crisis, have been adamant that they won't do it again. The result is that the Army is rapidly shrinking below the end-strength that the Army and Congress thinks is necessary. It remains to be seen how this will end.

Ferret7446• 2 years ago

Interesting, that parallels what I've heard about Affirmative Action in college admissions too; the student who get in from the lowered bar struggle and fail.

SkipperCat• 2 years ago

Just gonna float this out there... Maybe the US is better without so many people in the military. Do we really need to be everywhere? And I'm not saying let's walk away from conflict zones. I'm saying there's not that much of an need to patrol the north Atlantic, or defend Japan or keep troops in other places which were only relevant in 1948.

xkqd• 2 years ago

While I agree with you in spirit, the United State’s hegemony relies on its ability to project power across the globe.

It’s just been getting really expensive to do it the way we’ve been doing it.

toomuchtodo• 2 years ago

The more expensive it gets, the closer we get to a point of system failure. Whether you believe this to be good or bad is a function of your belief in value in US force projection and the human cost it incurs.

dboreham• 2 years ago

Because there are no enemies with access to the north Atlantic or the Sea of Japan.

poszlem• 2 years ago

The real question isn't whether withdrawing from the North Atlantic, Japan, and similar locations will save money. Instead, it's about whether remaining there is more cost-effective than having to reclaim these areas in 20 years from adversaries who will certainly try to exploit the power vacuum.

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

There is still very much a need to patrol the north atlantic and defend Japan today.

wharvle2• 2 years ago

Part of the shift to a large standing army is probably the MIC milking the taxpayer, as many suppose.

Another part, however, is that the pace of war is so high and the minimum required level of training and military organizational capability to be able to go toe to toe with a top-tier foreign power is so great that it's not been clear, since the end of WWII, that the US would again be able to take so very long to get rolling as it did in that war, if it wants to be able to project power abroad at all in a meaningful way against strong enemies.

IOW scaling back our military too much might well be the equivalent of bowing out of the first stage or two of the next great conflict, even more so than it was in WWII, and it's less clear all the time that our historical gigantic advantage of the two-ocean moat will give us so much leisure to prepare, or that we'd quite so easily be able to wrest back control of vital supply lines if another world war breaks out, having allowed the enemy to take them in the first place (even if it stays non-nuclear—if it goes that way, of course, we're in totally uncharted and very bad territory, for all concerned)

Then there's the domestic concerns: the military is the only jobs program with bipartisan support. College, free housing (including for a family!), free healthcare (ditto!), good education for your kids. Retirement! Why, it's practically a way for a blue collar American kid to opt into European-level social support (though with some, ah, significant costs). There are social-stability interests in keeping recruitment levels high.

throw0101d• 2 years ago

Maybe the US is better without so many people in the military. Do we really need to be everywhere?

Where do you not want to be? Europe as part of NATO? The Pacific to counter-balance China? The Middle East (to help protect shipping through the Suez Canal)?

ok_dad4• 2 years ago

I was in the navy as an officer. It’s a toxic cesspool, probably worse after 15 years now. The whole military needs some changes but the navy needs to change more. Senior officers need to give more respect to the enlisted and junior officers. Junior officers have to be trained as midshipmen (not the rank but the job) first so they can learn how to have good relationships with subordinates that know more than them. Junior officers need to realize they’re useless for a year or two and senior officers need to realize the same, so there’s less pressure to perform and more room to learn. Mentorship is dead in the navy, now it’s just yelling and bullying.

orwin• 2 years ago

It is hearsay (i heard it from a French army officer a year ago), but it seems the only army corp in the western world who has improved in the last 15 years in an organizational point of view was the US army (and he said (translated, from a 1-year old memory) "The army in particular, not the airforce").

He was extremely critical of the French army culture, and high level officers especially (like you it seems) and said something like "but at least we aren't Spain or Italy", so i guess they're worse. He also said that one of the lesson from ukraine is that it showed how trash and susceptible to corruption "legacy officers" were, and hopefully officers families (some of which date back from Napoleon in the French army) will now be met with some suspicions.

webworker• 2 years ago

I recently inquired about joining the Coast Guard (Reserves). I like their mission, I like that they help domestically especially with things like disaster relief and environmental issues, and sea-worthy things are in my wheelhouse. I reached out in THREE ways online and never got a callback.

I called my local office. The recruiter I talked to seemed to generally not care at all, I drove 90% of the conversation. Couldn't tell me what "rates" (jobs) the CG has and what would be applicable to my background. I'm stunned, I'm thinking this is literally your job to know this kind of a thing. The recruiter told me that I should go look at the jobs/rates on their website. Yep - go look at their website - which was offline for about at least week (or maybe still offline - I stopped checking).

This recruiter didn't offer to follow up, which would have been difficult because they also didn't bother to get any of my contact information, or even ask my name. My military friends absolutely could not believe this.

Of course, it could have been this particular military recruiter. Although I was also ignored in other channels, too. I'm thinking -

1 - Your branch is in DIRE need of people, both active and reserve. TEN cutters are being pulled from service, and nearly 30 boat stations are being closed. 2 - If you're this incompetent during the recruiting processes, what would service in your branch actually look like?

Not a great experience/impression. I may try again later (find a different recruiting office), but if this is how recruiting is being done, it's no wonder why they can't find warm bodies.

ryandvm• 2 years ago

My understanding is that the Coast Guard is pretty selective and it's not easy to get into. Something like 15% acceptance rate. I don't think they're having the same recruiting difficulties as the larger branches.

warner254• 2 years ago

They're having fewer difficulties than the Navy and Army, but recruiting has been a struggle for the Coast Guard too. Here's an article from earlier this month: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/17/coast-guard-a...

The Coast Guard has struggled to bring in recruits, failing to meet its enlisted goals for the past four years. In mid-2023, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan told Congress that the service was short 3,500 members, while the service's fiscal 2024 budget request reported a shortfall of 4,800, or nearly 10% of its force.

I don't cross paths with a lot of Coast Guard folks, but I was talking to one a few months ago who painted an ugly picture of what this looks like at the ground level. People from his station are getting pulled as individual augmentees for operational deployments in other places while everybody else works a number of double shifts to cover the duties at their own station.

With that said, I'm not shocked by webworker's story. Part of the recruiting crisis is due to the recruiting apparatus being pretty dysfunctional. Hence the article about the Coast Guard announcing reforms to who does recruiting and how they'll be trained. The Army also announced similar reforms last year.

Navy again lowers requirements as it struggles to meet recruitment goals

Related Stories