Females fail first phase of Ranger experiment. What are your thoughts?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:18:04 -0400

The Army announced that the last of the female candidates for Ranger school have failed the first experiment. Of course, according to the Christian Science Monitor, this has sparked a debate about whether or not the standard is realistic.

The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers.

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 And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.

Of course, I predicted this debate when the idea was floated about allowing women into the elite forces – that when women didn’t meet the minimum standard, it would be because the standard was unrealistic. That’s why I was pulling for one or several women who would complete the school successfully at the current standard. The whole point for Ranger School is not create chest-thumping neanderthals, it’s to create or test leaders under combat conditions without an actual enemy shooting at them. It is to create conditions that test a student’s ability to successfully complete the mission even though he, and his subordinates, are exhausted, famished, and sore.

Rangers have to be able to operate at 100% far from any other American troops, with all of their equipment to survive and fight on their backs and their only means of arriving at the battle or the objective of their mission is their own two feet. So where do you compromise the standard?

Of course, Ray Mabus, the Navy Secretary, is ready to throw the SEALs under the bus;

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times this week that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. “First, we’re going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job,” he said.

Why would there be a standard if it had nothing to do with the job? Obviously, Mabus doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But we knew that from some of his other stupid decisions in that job.

All 20 of the women who took part in this experiment have nothing to be ashamed about. A lot of men didn’t make the standard right along side of them. I hope and encourage the Army to continue to allow women to try and make the standard, but a lot of soldiers depend on the current standard to be led by only the best graduates of those schools and lowering the standard has nothing to do with chest-thumping and everything to do with bringing soldiers home safely from war? According to statistics, only 3 percent of the U.S. Army is Ranger-qualified..

http://news.yahoo.com/8-women-fail-ranger-school-rangers-standards-change-214600870.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/none-8-remaining-female-candidates-pass-first-phase-ranger-school/

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 2:29 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:29:16 -0400

The first run is always the most tenuous. I think there will be more, & I think there will be successes!!!

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 1 at 2015 2:29 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:29:21 -0400

The proliferation of women and combat topics is astounding. I dotn think there's actually much debate in the military itself. Here there are two camps: "same standards, same treatment, equality" and "not in my Corps/Army etc".

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jun 1 at 2015 4:11 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:11:19 -0400

Maintain the standards. Those who pass deserve the Tab. Those who don't, don't.

I predict the Army will buckle to pressure and change the standards for women or, perhaps, for everyone, to ensure women can be awarded a Ranger Tab. I hope that is not the case, but I fear it is inevitable. The Army tried to do it the right way and none passed. Now they will be pressured to have some pass. With the current Administration, the Army will be forced to do it.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 1 at 2015 5:24 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:24:41 -0400

I was not surprised by the results to be honest....it is a physically as well as demanding leadership course that has a high failure rate for males as well. I do not have a dog in this fight any longer, but I hope for everyone concerned that the standards in this course and others are never lowered, there is a reason why they are the way they are. Not everyone is cut out to be a Ranger or a SEAL or a member of SF or other elite units and it should remain that way. We should not prescribe to "the everyone gets a trophy for participating" mentality that has pervaded a lot of society outside the gates of the military installations.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 1 at 2015 6:11 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:11:30 -0400

CONGRATULATIONS to these pioneering women!

This isn't "over"...it's the beginning. You'll see the first woman earn her Ranger Tab within 12-months.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 4:32 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 04:32:31 -0400

19 women were given a chance at Ranger School. That is roughly the equivalent of one squad as assigned on Day 1 for Ranger School (squads start larger to account for attrition). A 19 man squad starting on Day 1 will usually have between 1-4 graduates who finish the course with no recycles or failures. A few more will generally finish the course after recycling at least one phase.

That is 1-4 fewer Rangers the Army lost for a social experiment as the total slots available for training are finite. The law of averages state that if you throw enough women into the school, one of them will eventually graduate. The entire concept will not produce female graduates anywhere near a number that is cost effective or worthwhile.

Keep in mind, these women were specially selected and screened by their commands before they even got a chance to even be considered to attend the Pre-Ranger Course. The Pre-Ranger Course they attended (there is usually one for each Infantry division) is one of the best. I'm already seeing arguments that they weren't prepared enough, yet their male peers, though reduced in number, will finish the course and they had far less screening to get a chance at Ranger School.

Bottom line, if you had a to select 100 men and 100 women randomly from the US population to accomplish a task that requires strength and endurance, you will almost always have significantly more men than women finish the task, especially given the current physical standards.

Some of you will argue are the physical standards realistic for the task and are they really necessary. I challenge that men have been graduating Ranger School and a host of other elite courses for decades at these standards. Not everybody deserves a trophy.

Others will argue they failed not because of physical standards, but because of academics (failed patrols). Anyone who ever done any selection course or Ranger School knows that cognitive ability decreases exponentially with physical stress. The further you fall behind physically, the more more mistakes you make. Without a doubt, the physical exertion they put out trying to keep up with their male counterparts directly contributed to them failing their patrols.

Some of you will say they lack experience. Well, Ranger School and Pre-Ranger will teach you everything you need to know. Privates have been going to Ranger School for decades and I doubt any of you will argue that they are bastions of experience.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 8:41 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:41:23 -0400

My first thought would be, don't read disreputable news outlets like The Christian Science Monitor.

There's no debate being had about lowering the standards for Ranger School. From General Odierno down to the females that competed, every single person has said, "maintain the standard." I challenge anyone to find an actual quote of an actual human being, military policy makers - not a vague reference in a blog - saying that we need to review the standards for Ranger School.

The girls don't want a watered down standard or then passing means nothing. The generals don't want to change it because they all attended. The instructors who work there refuse to water it down because they own it.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Jun 6 at 2015 9:37 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:37:23 -0400

Politicians need to let the Army run the Army. Nobody was crying about the standards before. It's supposed to be hard. Somewhere out there, there's a woman who can meet the standard. We shouldn't lower the standards because certain candidates have hello kitty bandaids on their booboos.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made Jun 7 at 2015 12:12 PM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:12:08 -0400

I wonder how the "right" to attend these elite classes has become such an issue. There were several events courses that I wanted to attend while on active duty, and because of the "Needs of the Army" I wasnt granted the opertunity. That was fine with me. I joined to serve not for my benifit but for my country! ASK NOT WHAT YOUR ARMY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR ARMY!" It's about sacrifice and service and not about how can I bring attention to my accomplishments. These woman should be placed in the military where the "Army" can be best served, and if that as a Tanger than fine. This "rights" to serve argument is unsettling!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 7 at 2015 2:18 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 14:18:17 -0400

The mental and physical thresholds is too high for a significant shift of female ranger graduates.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 3:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 15:22:55 -0400

Is this over yet? This is just something to talk about to pass the time. It's almost a reality tv show. Let me know when a female can meet the Ranger standard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 4:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:39:25 -0400

The standard is the standard it's been that way since the school was conceived . All I hear about is equality , well you got it . I served in the 2nd Ranger Bn. I have nothing but respect for those who earn the tab. The standard needs to remain the standard, you don't dumb down or water down Ranger school.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 7 at 2015 7:33 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 19:33:49 -0400

The standards are there for a reason. Those who never served or in this case is not a Ranger or even tried out for Ranger wouldn't understand.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 3:35 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:35:18 -0400

I believe retired General Dunwoody (first female 4-star general) articulated my personal viewpoint perfectly. Quartermasters lead the way!

"I have strong opinions on this. It takes me back to Airborne School, when they had just started letting women officers go to Airborne School. It wasn't a popular decision. The bottom line for me is if you let others dissuade you from something you want to do, something you believe you can do, something you're passionate about, they win. You have to follow your passion. If I had not been to Airborne School, I couldn't have gone to rigger school. I would never have been in the 82nd Airborne Division. That one door for me was the foundation of many follow-on assignments.

I've watched doors open my entire career. Some are opened for you, some you have to kick down. I believe if someone is qualified, and I mean fully qualified, they should be able to go through that door.

I think it is smart the Army and the military are methodically looking at each one of these branches and career fields to determine what the standard is. They can't lower those standards, once identified, to accommodate women coming into those fields. That would be a failure. We're not a social experiment. We're a war fighting institution, and that's dangerous business."

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Jun 8 at 2015 10:01 AM

LTC Barry Hull — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:01:16 -0400

I graduated Ranger School in 1987. When I started, i weighed in at a little over 120 pounds. I was a first time go, no recycles. I was rucking a significantly higher % of weight than the bigger guys. I performed in every position in the platoon to include M60 gunner, ammo bearer and AG. I tabbed out in day 2 the in FL phase and since I was done with patrol leader positions, I became a pack mule for the platoon. I carried the radio or was on the MG crew from that point on. I watched as bigger and more physically fit guys bit the dust. Some outright quit, some used an injury to "honorably" leave, some were legitimately broken. Some failed patrols. Might I add that I am sure most of those females who recently attended the course were of bigger frame and in better shape than I was when I went through. I didn't have a dedicated prep course, though IOBC at that time did work to prepare you for Rgr School to some degree. I'll tell you the secret to Ranger School. You have to walk in there with the mentality that there are two ways out of the course. 1) graduate and become a Ranger, 2) Die trying. Why is that the case? Because that is the very essence of combat. In it's most important moments, the most critical situation, the idea is that a Ranger will give EVERY LAST measure to compete the mission. What if the Airborne troops on D-Day decided that they we too scattered to fight as a cohesive unit and surrendered? Bastogne? Pick your desperate battle and there you will find the spirit that Ranger School attempts to propagate in our force. It is not about gender or gender friendly standards. Bullets and bombs don't give a rats butt about gender. It is about MENTAL toughness: instilling that idea in a leader's head that I can overcome any situation if I just keep driving on. Good leaders lead and good followers follow. That is how we win battles. So if a female can pass the standard than by all means..I'll pin the tab on them myself, but these idoits that say "may be the standards aren't relevant" are wrong. The essences of combat has not changed in 4000 years. When it is at its most critical, combat will always be the most horrid, grueling, unimaginable terror a person can experience. Ranger School is about building that mental toughness that carries a leader through no matter what. PC Police be damned. You are wrong.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Jun 8 at 2015 4:18 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:18:41 -0400

Tough, most people dont make it even adding women into the mix doesnt change the failure rate.

Response by COL John Maus made Aug 18 at 2015 1:44 PM

COL John Maus — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:44:08 -0400

Clearly, the standards have been lowered, just as the APFT requirements have been for many years. Until there is one, and only one, standard and no extra chances are given, there will always be bias. Open positions in the 75th Ranger Regiment will be next regardless of what the current party line is now being expressed by our leadership.

Response by SFC James Welch made Sep 29 at 2020 12:50 PM

SFC James Welch — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:50:40 -0400

I believe two Officers have graduated Ranger School, did you forget them?