After the first day of Ranger School, only 3 women failed the PT test, 16 remain. Great job! Do the naysayers still doubt them?

Did they have the same standards as the males? or was it the normal, 60% that woman are normally required to do. If they have the same standards and they make , My hats off to them, If they make it on different standards than the men, They are not fit to wear the tab.

1SG Harold Piet I fully agree...and personally if I were female I can't imagine myself being successful in meeting the standard while the bar is lowered to do so.

So excellent points about students should be fully prepared for the APFT. The APFT has some added stress. No day zero, so you show up very early with your gear. You go well beyond breaking the plan. Etc etc. I went to Ranger School in 2004 with a pre-Ranger APFT score of 362 but didn't max at the school.

Men and women are both required to achieve 49 pushups, 59 situps, and 5 mile run in 40 minutes or less. Sounds easy right? Not really, if you go there only being able to do 50-60 pushups, then you're probably not making it. Sit-ups are easy enough. The run is a pain, as the route isn't easy. The harder you make it on yourself at home, the better chance you'll have at school. That's just my opinion though. I have the utmost respect for those women even making it this far. If they can make it then there is no reason why it shouldn't be open to women. My only concern is if none of them make it all the way through, and the Army caves into lowering the standards later. The Army seems to have knee-jerk reactions like that.

ok, what standard are they using, is it the Ranger standard, or are they using the US Army's female PFT standards? If they are using the Ranger standard, the minimum standards are higher than almost all the perfect scores for women age 17-19..

1SG Michael Bonnett PO1 Rexford Dundon Can't we move past the "standards" questions? Read a little bit on this topic: all Ranger candidates are being evaluated against the same standards. @SGT Jason Miller Just note the Ranger PT test isn't a real APFT. One's ability to pass the APFT is essentially meaningless for the Ranger PT test.

The only test that matters is the one ISIS and the Taliban will provide.

Failure does not allow retest and will affect more than just the one who fails to measure up...

Play politics somewhere else.

I do not want some good troops dying trying to take care of a weak link forced on a team and that is where this is leading...

Yep

Pretty much my sentiment. Good for them to get past the first test, but this doesn't mean we should have a parade.

A lot of people care!!!

Some people care. Some people do not, CSM (Join to see)

That's the problem 1SG. The " Us verses them" is kind of demeaning this process. I could give two shakes if its a male or female. If and when they pass as long as they are held to the same standards they will be rangers otherwise this is an exercise in who can get pretty Tabs. This is one of the main problems I have run into in many facets of our army that gender plays a role in being a soldier. If you want to be a combat MOS soldier here is the standard meet it or find another thing to do.

Most men? NO! a few but not most...lol

Sweet!

CPT Ron Snyder, The standards should be what it takes to do the job in combat continuously and survive a winner. For all soldiers in that MOS, age and gender do not play a role. I emphasize "Should"

Not celebrating at all sir, merely saying great job on the PT test that many said they wouldn't make it past. My former CDR is a Ranger and broke down "hell week" to me by the hour so I understand they challenges they face.

1SG Michael Bonnett You'd think that after nearly 15 years of women serving for "month after month of ground combat" in Iraq and Afghanistan that we wouldn't still have folks arguing that women aren't physically capable of performing in combat.

1LT(P) (Join to see) Interesting perspective; an inside look is always good for transparency. Perhaps the Army should be more transparent on this point. On your data, though, I'd challenge you to run the numbers for men attending Ranger School and pass rates and etc. Total number of men in the Army, the number of men annually who attend Ranger School, the percentage that pass. Doing this comparison would likely make your data on women seem a little less meaningful. As far as preferential treatment, maybe a good comparison would be the Infantry Officer Basic Course, which is essentially a six-month prep course for passing Ranger School. We don't seem to complain too much that every Infantry 2LT that goes to Ranger School has benefited from 6 months of Ranger School preparation on the USG's dime, with no other duties to complete and etc. Another good comparison would be any Soldier from any infantry unit that goes to Ranger School; as they are coming from infantry units, their whole time-in-service is prep for Ranger School on the USG's dime. So let's look at the other side of the story so we can have an intellectually honest discussion, versus cherry-picking statistics to promote our points.

MAJ Jeff Jager- I completely agree, let's have an intellectual discussion. I did cherry pick statistics. Those numbers are the best way to prove my initial point. I'm focusing on Gender Integration at Ranger school. The numbers are the easiest way for me to make a substantial argument on the possibility of opening an all male leadership school based Infantry PLT/SQD tactics to females who don't thrive in that environment. The combat arms desperately needs ranger tabbed leaders. Leaders who are there 24/7, serving in those roles. A non-combat specific females candidates defeats the purpose in my eyes. Males have been the primary customer since the beginning of Ranger School for that exact reason. The difficulty of the course makes it statistically difficult, and that won't help me prove my point. I won't pull number from 60+ years of that course (which has been changing since the beginning either way), and compare them to a one class assessment.

Being a more recent graduate of Infantry Basic, I can tell you that it's not 'essentially a 6 month prep-course for passing Ranger School.' It is also the duty of an infantry men to get tabbed, and bring that leadership to his platoon. They aren't neglecting duties by prepping for a course that is required of them. And by prepping, I mean showing up to work. They aren't tourists, and it's not an option. If ibolc was a ranger school specific prep course, it would have more then a 40-50% success rate. More like 70-80% is my guess with the prep. That assumption is very incorrect. A point I would like to make is that if all ibolc lieutenants could be prepped for months specially ranger school, the pass rate would shoot up dramatically. Typically, and platoon at Ibolc has 1-2 tabs out of 5 instructors. The CPT (PLT Tactical trainer) has to have one, while the NCOS do not.

In closing, Infantry men who are trained on their job specific duties (that are similar to ranger school) get the training by default, like everyone else in their platoons. You are essentially saying that all infantrymen are treated favorably to prep for Ranger School, but that is their job. They will continue to do the physically demanding activities way after ranger school. They don't just put a tab on and coast through their time in the Army. (I'm implying soft skills that go/females included). They do this because their bodies and minds can take it year after year. I honestly believe there are 1-4 females out there that can physically complete ranger school at some point in their career, but their bodies are not durable enough to handle the Infantry lifestyle.

I try to use common sense as much as possible (5th principle of patrolling). Saying that, why do you think other jobs (out side combat arms) in the Army need Ranger tabs? It would seem as if you think the infantry should not be a priority or focus in this case.

Being in a geographical arear where you get a combat patch is not the same as being in a ground combat unit...

Anyone tying to make such an association have never been in a ground combat unit...

I can buy a ticket to the super bowl... That does not mean I can survive on the field....

I wonder has that always been the Ranger PT test? As a support MOS, I was never considering going, Airborne and Air Assault was enough.

Keep in mind, many of the PT failures are due to the following: (someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Many Infantry IOBC Officers do not want to attend Ranger School (RS). They just do not, hell some of them did not want Infantry. But the Army in its wisdom pretty much forces ALL IOBC Officers to attend RS. They fail the PT test to end the suffering and/or to just get on with their Army career. 2. Before the PT Test, Ranger Students may or may not have done a thousand or so push ups / flutter kicks / duck walk and etc. before even getting to the PT Test. If a person is marginal at PT Standards, then there is a good possibility that a person will fail once they finally conducted the PT test. 3. The Ranger Instructors have extra high stadards, no slack people, there is a high possibility that you knocked out a good 120 push ups, but failed the push up event and had to retest about 10 minutes later. Then you must again push out another 120 push ups in order to even pass the minimum standards of the Ranger PT Test. 4. People show up to RS with injuries. This is a reality. I'm sure there are several more vaiables for people not passing the PT Test, but generally it falls into those four categories.