All 8 women fail Ranger School: Some Rangers say standards should change

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2015-05-30 06:02

Article here. Excerpt:

'On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that all the women who had attempted to graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the standards, according to a military source.

Ranger School, which grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force, opened its doors to women for the first time this year. Eight of the 20 women who originally entered the school's first co-ed class were allowed to recycle through the program after they fell out in their first go-round. The Friday announcement will confirm that this happened again.
...
But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I have a question...

Recently, there has been talk of lowering standards for firefighters and now rangers.

This is how it is done...

Part of the score is on knowledge and part on physical strength. For simplicity, let me call that: the INFORMATION and MUSCLE tests, respectively.

Now many are revisiting this issue of standards... but... from THIS article here and from the recent one on firefighters, they are ONLY revisiting the MUSCLE standards.

And once they lower that standard, more women will qualify for admission.

Here is how... In the NEW test...

You can get a woman who scores:
80 on the INFORMATION and 80 on the MUSCLE: both are passed, score is 160

You can get a man who scores:
69 on the INFORMATION and 85 on the MUSCLE: both are passed, score is 159

And she gets admitted and he fails.

This is because they lowered the standard on the muscle so he no longer does much better than she does... OK... as I said... we now have machines.

BUT! Don't we also have mobile devices that can help people in an instant get information on the fire/combat? Soldiers are now equipped with all sorts of IT devices that communicate their personal information and provide date on the fire/local. We have mobile devices that can be resistant to fire and communicate heat gradients. This is no longer WW2 combat where a soldier must also make tactical decisions. The soldier or firefighter has greater air support and telepresent information.

So, if we are revisiting the MUSCLE part of the test as being anachronistic, should we not also visit the INFORMATION part of the test and lower that standard too? In that case, men would likely still do higher: equal intellect but men have more the brawn.

Why are we not revisiting BOTH? Is the reevaluation of these tests accounting for BOTH the assistance of MACHINES AND the assistance of information technology?

Now, admittedly, I am not a firefighter or in the rangers. So I do not KNOW about these tests. So I am curious if I am way off the mark.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Sun, 2015-05-31 15:34

Thomas, I am no expert on the specific hiring practices of these types of positions (rangers, military, firemen, etc), but I don't believe they combine the scores. I'm pretty sure an applicant must pass all tests. So no matter how high you score on one test, it would not fix the fact if you failed another test.

I also suspect that cognitive standards are rarely lowered because of technological advances. Technology can fail, and when it does you have to rely on cognitive knowledge. Just like ship captains must know how to navigate by using mathematical equations, the stars, etc even though they have instruments to do this for them. Engineers must still know math even though they use calculators and computers.

My opinion on lowering standards is this. I can understand that standards may need to be evaluated and adjusted from time to time because of new technology and changing needs. When it is deemed that standards can be lowered, it should be across the board for everyone applying for the same position and be done because the higher standard is NO LONGER NEEDED; not because it will allow for more women or more people of color to pass the tests.

When we lower standards for sexist or racist reasons, it is a disservice and danger to everyone, as it weakens the whole system.

There are biological differences between men and women. IMO, Society just needs to accept the fact that it is harder for women to meet standards, plus it usually costs more to put women into these positions (especially positions which require deployment, shared sleeping arrangements, etc)

edit: added a paragraph

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sun, 2015-05-31 22:31

the funny thing is...

that most women (including myself) accept the fact that, on average, women just do not, naturally, have the physical strength that men have. especially the upper body strength that most of these jobs require.
so being that most women accept this fact, why do they keep pushing to have more women in these positions? are they trying to placate women as a whole, or the radfems? or both? i don't get it, really.
if not those reasons, what, then?
those are the only reasons to do it, i rather suppose, because as thomas said it puts lives in danger.
look. the way i see it, if you are not qualified for a position, then you shouldn't HAVE the position, period. male, female, white or "minority".

some women WILL be qualified, most will not. that's just the breaks. sorry.

if you have to lower the standards do you not simultaneously raise the DANGER?
i say; 'yes'.
and for what? just to be politically correct?
if so, then that is utter madness!
not to mention reckless and stupid.
do they believe human lives (both male and female) worth it??
i would say not. anyone who believes so is an idiot.
but then, again, i just realised something... I'm not an idiot.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ErikaLancastor on Wed, 2015-06-03 05:53