i get all that you’re saying but it seems like making the entrance requirements the same for men and women would attend to points 2 and 3. hell throw in a new test to make sure your score over a certain grade while shooting and running. it wouldn’t take much to deal with points 2 and 3. you either make the cut or you don’t.
as for point 1, its the way it goes. what are the motivations for the higher female dropout rate. family intentions? what percentage of dropouts is due strictly to physical inferiority and what percentage of dropouts is due to societal construction?
You continually ignore the very high cost of failed recruits (~$50,000 per soldier for training) that comes out of equipment and other training budgets at a time of already reduced defense budgets. This hurts the overall force. I may be a big meanie and a jerk, but you’re still being a bit of a steroetype by refusing to acknowledge the “facts” and “statistics” and the fact that 3 of 15 women from a selective sub-pool completed Marines basic vs an 80-90% success rate for an open pool of men.
You come up with that solution to disadvantaging the corps from equipment and training as well as the rationale and then maybe I won’t seem like such a doofus.
Again, in my prior post (which you are too lazy to read) I cited the Marines test group which was highly selective from existing armed forces personell saw 3 of 15 complete BASIC versus about 80-90% for men. This was from a highly motivated, highly selective subpool. Again, the cost to train a Marine is about $50,000. That’s a lot ot spend on PC.
^ ^ok, that is a fair point… I thought there was standards to pass before you got into the training program. I can see how that would be a problem. why not just test applicants for a minimum amount to physical ability first?
This lady is 100% correct. BS doesn’t seem to understand that ability is a curve and not an absolute. There will be women above the median men score. Disqualifying them would create a weaker team. I think he knows this though and is fighting to win a losing position now.
One fix would be to ramp up the entrance requirements.
I just did a back of the envelope calculation and given the two failure rates and incorporating that cost into the cost per final recruit, it costs 4.25 times more to train a single successful female recruit of the same caliber.
Um you ignored the cost of failure highlighted in the last few posts that comes from opening up the pool. So spending roughly 4.25x to train an equivalently capable soldier under a fixed budget gets you ahead how?
no i read that post but 15 in a sample is not enough to be representative anyway so i ignored it. like kmd is suggesting, there are ways to address the high dropout rate. with more acceptance in these roles, i doubt that the dropout rate will remain anywhere near that number. maybe those 15 were lacking support from their fellow trainees. maybe those 15 were merely trying to prove something to someone or to themselves. show me 10,000 women take that test and if the dropout rate is the same i’ll fly down to where you are and buy you 100 beers.
There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread. I love how Greenman, the only actual Marine is 100% in agreeance and the Canadians and academics who have never fired a high caliber weapon in their lives are busting out metal gear solid quotes to try to get around reality. Oh, not to mention the ACTUAL STUDIES the marine corps performed and their view given their actual experience with warfare. I’m really sorry about the facts not matching your reality and all.
You have a failure in your screening methods then, if they are not predictive of program success. That has nothing to do with women. Perhaps the screening needs to be adjusted to reflect different realities so that those that pass are more likely to succeed in basic. Financial equivalent: you buy 10 retail stocks and 7 go to zero. Do you ban buying retail stocks forever, or do you adjust your screened to pick up successful retail stocks? Excluding retail stocks as a class will probably make your well diversified portfolio less efficient than including them. So you’re best advised to include the best performing stocks of all types and just find out how to screen them better.
You’re given a random group of applicants, equal amount of men and women. You’re forming a brigade with a limited budget. You can have all the males or all the people that are above the median physical fitness level as measured by male pt standards. You’re going to war in six months. Which do you choose?
bs, you sound like every bigoted dude in history. “women can’t vote, because”. “women can’t be doctors, because”. there are always reasons to keep things the way they were. but as history shows us, with some minor adjustments, we are much better off as a society for having made the changes.
Yes, that’s clearly what this is. Which is why the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, MLS the Olympics and literally every institution that compares men and women in physically competitive events is siding with you.
Sex deserves to be part of the factor model in regard to infantry. It is more powerful than most of the other factors taken by itself. If you’re an nba scout, you don’t spend your resources looking for the 5’8" exception. You would be fired fairly quickly. Yes, this means some short players that could make the NBA will never get there, but the team that will be fielded will be better if the resources are spent where the factors are strong. Come on. We all studied this stuff.